LIBRARY 

OF  THE 

University  of  California. 

RECEIVED    BY    EXCHANGE 

aass    jV^lM 

1 

THE  AESTHETIC  DOCTRINE 
OF  MONTESQUIEU 

ITS  APPLICATION  IN  HIS  WRITINGS 


DISSERTATION  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOARD  OF    UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY   WITH  THE    REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 


EDWIN   PRESTON   DARGAN 


BALTIMORE 

J.   H.    FURST    COMPANY 

1907 


s 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2007  with  funding  from 

Microsoft  Corporation 


http://www.archive.org/details/aestheticdoctrinOOdargrich 


THE  AESTHETIC  DOCTRINE 
OF  MONTESQUIEU 

ITS  APPLICATION  IN  HIS  WRITINGS 


DISSEBTATION  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  BOABD  OF   UNIVERSITY  STUDIES  OF  THE  JOHNS  HOPKINS 

UNIVERSITY  IN  CONFORMITY  WITH  THE    REQUIREMENTS  FOR  THE  DEGREE 

OF  DOCTOR  OF  PHILOSOPHY 


BY 

EDWIN   PRESTON   DARGAN 


BALTIMORE 

J.   H.    FURST    COMPANY 

1907 


r^f(^^ 


TO 

E.   H.   W. 


— *'  Ore  ai  trovet  po  que  tani  avons  quisJ* 


175691 


PREFACE 


The  present  study  was  undertaken  from  a  desire  to  acquire 
familiarity  with  the  writings  of  a  great  Frenchman,  and  with  the 
purpose  of  discovering  his  artistic  ideas,  of  determining  his  strictly 
literary  value.  The  desire  has  been  satisfied,  but  the  purpose 
remains  only  partly  fulfilled.  It  was  hoped  that  his  Aesthetic 
Doctrine  could  be  made  the  kernel  of  a  treatment  which  would 
include  a  thorough  study  of  Montesquieu's  style,  of  his  setting,  of 
his  precursors  and  influence.  Especially  was  it  hoped  that  there 
would  be  opportunity  to  engage  in  the  fecund  criticism  of  his 
general  ideas. 

The  writer  has  not  abandoned  all  hopes  of  completing  this 
treatment,  for  which  much  material  has  been  already  collected. 
During  two  years,  Montesquieu  has  been  the  thing  most 
prominently  before  him ;  one  does  not  quit  a  great  thinker  so 
easily.  At  present,  however,  in  view  of  the  specific  demands 
of  dissertation-writing  and  other  circumstances,  it  has  seemed 
best  to  submit  only  what  may  prove,  it  is  trusted,  a  tolerably 
exhaustive  and  rounded  presentation  of  the  Doctrine.  A  final 
chapter  on  application  has  been  added,  to  point,  at  least,  along 
other  paths. 

Thanks  are  due  for  courteous  assistance  to  the  officials  of  the 
Library  of  Congress,  of  the  British  Museum  and  of  the  Biblio- 
theque  Nationale.  More  especially  would  the  writer  speak  in 
grateful  acknowledgment  of  the  encouragement  given  and  the 
allowances  made  by  his  two  very  considerate  referees. 

E.  P.  D. 

(April,  1906.) 


TABLE   OF   CONTENTS. 


BOOK  I. 
PKOLEGOMENA. 


Page. 

Chapter  I.    Bibliography 1-7 

11.    Introductory 8-13 

III.    The  Material 14-19 

BOOK  II. 

AESTHETIC  DOCTRINE— PKINCIPLES. 

Chapter  IV.  Art — Description  and  Divisions 20-21 

V.  Art— Object,  Origin,  Value  and  Relations 22-34 

VI.  Art — Qualities  and  Properties 35-43 

VII.  Art— Criterion— Taste 44-47 

VIII.  Schools — Classicism  versus  Individualism 48-54 

BOOK  III. 

FORMS  OF  ART. 

Chapter  IX.  Montesquieu  and  the  Fine  Arts — General  View 55-59 

X.  Painting — Raphael  and  Michelangelo 60-65 

XL  Sculpture 66-68 

XII.  Architecture— The  Gothic 69-73 

XIII.  Music  and  Dancing 74-77 

XIV.  Landscape-Gardening 78-79 

XV.  Literature 80-160 

1.  General  View — Definition,  Value,  and  Qualities..     80-87 

2.  Relations — Influence  of  the  Salon  and  Woman — 

E^rit 87-92 

3.  Books  and  Authors 93-99 

4.  Scholarship  and  Cognate  Fields 99-106 

5.  Genres — Poetry,  Fiction,  Drama,  History,  Satire, 

and  Criticism 106-124 

6.  Ancients  and  Modems 124-129 

7.  Individual  Authors 129-153 

8.  Technique— Style 153-160 

BOOK  IV. 

DISCUSSION  OF  DOCTRINE. 

Chapter  XVI.    Criticism  of  Doctrine 161-183 

XVII.    Application  of  Doctrine — Conclusions 1 84-204 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


A.  and  I.  =  Arsace  et  Ismdnie. 

C.  de  L.  =  Causeries  du  Lundi. 

E.  L.  =  Esprit  des  Lois. 

G.  D.  R.  =  Considerations  sur  les  Causes  de  la  Grandeur  et  de  la  Decadence 

des  Romains. 
Hist.  V^rit.  =  Histoire  Veritable. 
L.  P.  =  Lettres  persanes. 
M.  or  Mont.  =  Montesquieu. 
M^l.  in.  =  Melanges  In^dites. 
P.  and  F.  =  Pensees  et  Fragments. 
S.  and  E.  =  Sylla  et  Eucrate. 
T.  G.  =  Temple  de  Gnide. 
V.  ^  P.  =  Voyage  h  Paphos. 
Voy. —Voyages  de  Montesquieu. 


BOOK  I. 
PEOLEGOMEIfA. 


CHAPTER  I. 
BIBLIOGRAPHY. 

The  edition  used  is  certainly  the  best,  and  the  one  which  at 
present  is  considered  definitive — that  of  Edouard  Laboulaye, 
7  vols.,  Paris,  Gamier,  1875-9.  (For  contents  of  this,  see  at 
end  of  Bibliography.) 

The  present  list  includes  only  those  works  actually  quoted  or 
referred  to  in  the  following  pages. ^  Among  these,  the  criticisms 
of  Sainte-Beuve,  Bruneti^re,  Faguet,  the  biographies  of  Vian  and 
Sorel,  the  more  recent  studies  of  Doumic,  Lanson,  Barckhausen, 
and  Saintsbury,  aud  the  great  work  of  Taine,  have  been  found  of 
special  service. 


Anon.     Revue  Historique,  Lix,  129.     (Review  of  Melanges  and 

Voyages.) 
Auger.     Vie  de    Montesquieu,  in    Lef^vre   ed.  of  the  Oeuvres, 

Paris,  1816.     6  vols. 
Barckhausen.     Grandeur   et  Decadence   des  Roma  ins.     Edition 

revue  et  annot^e  d'apr^s  les   manuscrits  du  Chateau  de  la 

BrMe  (Imprim^e   pour  FExposition  Universelle  de  1900), 

Paris,  1900. 
Lettres  Persanes.     Edition  revue,  etc.     Paris,  1897. 

*  An  elaborate  and  up-to-date  bibliography,  which,  it  is  hoped,  may  also  prove 
exhaustive,  has  been  compiled.  This  includes  about  five  hundred  titles,  and  deals 
with  every  phase  of  Montesquieu.  The  writer  hopes  to  publish  it,  some  time  in 
the  future,  as  a  general  bibliography  of  the  subject, 

I 


2  The  Aeslhetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

Barckhausen.     Montesquieu,  FEsprit  des  Lois,  et   les   archives 
de  la  BrMe.     Bordeaux,  1904. 

Le  D§sordre  dans  1' Esprit  des  Lois,  in  Revue  du  Droit 

Publique  et  de  la  Science  Politique,  ix,  31-40. 

(Prefaces  and  Introductions  to  the  Collection  Bordelaise  * — 

q.v,) 

Bemadau.     Annales  politiques,  litt^raires,  et  statistiques  de  Bor- 
deaux.    Bordeaux,  1803. 

Tableaux  de  Bordeaux.     Bordeaux,  1810. 

Besenval     Memoires.     Editors   Berville   and   Barri^re,    2    vols. 

Paris,  1821. 
Beudant.     Le  Droit  Individuel  et  TEtat.     Second  edition,  Paris, 

1891. 
Bolingbroke.     Lettres.     Tr.  Grimoard,  3  vols.     Paris,  1808. 
Bonnefon.     Voyages  de  Montesquieu,  in  Revue  d'Hist.  litt.  de  la 

France,  Vols,  ii  and  iv,  1895,  1897. 
Brosses.     Lettres  Famili^res,  2  vols.     Paris,  1885. 
Brunet.     Library  of  Montesquieu,  in  Migne,  Troisi^me  Encyclo- 

pMie  Th6ologique,  Tom.  XLiii,  Cols.  344-6.     Paris,  1860. 

Idem.  (Fuller),  In  Bulletin  de  T Alliance  des  Arts,  1845. 

Vol.  IV,  33-6. 

Bruneti^re.     Etudes  Critiques  sur  la   Litt^rature  Fran^aise,  iv, 
Paris,  1894. 

Evolution  des  Genres. — I.  Evolution  de  la  Critique,  2*"® 

6d.,  Paris,  1892. 

Manuel  de  THistoire  de  la  Litt.  Fr.,  Paris,  1898. 

Revue  des  Deux  Mondes,  xxxiii,  219-29. 

Buffon,  Nadault  de.     Correspondence  Inedite  de  Buffon,  2  vols. 

Paris,  1860. 
Cant^.     Montesquieu  in  Italia,  in  Nuova  Antologia,  3rd  Series, 

Liv,  561-72. 
Castel.     L'Homme  Morale  oppos6  k  THomme  Physique  de  M.  R. 

(Rousseau),  Toulouse,  1756. 
Collins.     Montesquieu     in     England,    in     Quarterly     Review, 

cxcvii,  331-63. 

^  With  the  collaboration  of  MM.  Celeste  and  D^zeiindris. 


The  Aesthetia  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  3 

Collection  Bordelaise.  Edited  by  the  Barons  de  Montesquieu,  and 
published  at  Bordeaux,  under  the  auspices  of  the  Soci^te  des 
Bibliophiles  de  Guyenne.     Consists  of: 

Deux  Opuscules  de  Montesquieu,  1891. 

Melanges  InMites  de  Montesquieu,  1892. 

Voyages  de  Montesquieu,  2  vols.,  1894-6. 

Pens6es  et  Fragments  In^dits,  2  vols.,  1899-1901. 

D'Alembert.     Eloge  de  Montesquieu,  in  M's.  Oeuvres,  London, 

1767,  I,  i-xxxiv. 
Dareste.     L'Histoire  Romaine  dans  Montesquieu,  Paris  (1866). 
Delacroix.     Montesquieu  consid^re  dans  une  Republique.     Paris, 

An  VI. 
Doumic.     Voyages  de  Montesquieu,  in  Revue  des  Deux  Mondes, 

cxLii,  924-35  (1897). 
Duparcq.     Notes  sur  Machiavel,  Montesquieu,  et  Ferrari.     Paris, 

1879. 
Faguet.     Etudes  Litt^raires — xviiime  Siecle.     Paris,  1901. 
Feller.     Dictionaire  Historique,  Fifth  ed.  Tom.  ix,  Paris,  1822. 
Fortage.     Editor,  Histoire  Veritable,  Bordeaux,  1902. 
Fournier  de  Flaix.     Voyages  de  Montesquieu,  Paris,  1897. 
Fr^ron.     Remarques  sur  le  livre  de  L'Esprit  des  Lois,  in  Opus- 
cules de  Freron,  Tom.  iii,  Amsterdam  (Paris),  1753. 
Fuzier-Herman.     La  Separation  des  Pouvoirs,  Paris,  1880. 
Gerard.     Essai  sur  le  Gotit,  Paris,  1766. 

Hardy.     Memoirs  of  the  Earl  of  Charlemont,  1812.     i,  160-73. 
Helvetius.     Notes  sur  L'Esprit  des  Lois,  in  M's.  Oeuvres,  Ed. 

Didot,  Paris,  1795. 
H^mon.     Cours  de  Litterature,  xv,  Montesquieu,  Paris,   1900. 
Hennequin.     Etude  sur  Montesquieu,  Paris,  1840. 
Hettner.      Literaturgeschichte  des  achtzehnten  Jahrhunderts ;  ii 

Theil:  Die  franzosische  Literatur,  5th  ed.  Brunswick,  1894. 
Janet.     Editor  Esprit  des  Lois,  Livres  lav,  Paris,  1887. 

Journal  des  Savants,  1892,  717-33  ;  1893,  142-57. 

Janssen.     Montesquieus  Theorie  von  der  Dreitheilung  der  Gewal- 

ten  im  Staate  auf  ihre  Quelle  zuriickgefiihrt.     Gotha,  1878. 
Koch.     Montesquieus  Verfassungstheorie.     Halle,  1883  (Diss). 


^c. 


4  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

Labat.     Le  Chateau  de  la  Br^de,  in  Recueil  des  Travaux  de  la 

Soci6t6  d'Agen.     Tom.  in,  1834. 
Lanson.     Revue  Universitaire,  ii,  i,  385-95.     (April,  1893.) 
Malet.     Discours  de  Reception  h  Montesquieu,  in  OeuvreSy  ed. 

1760,  London,  Tom.  vii. 
Meyer.     Com.  des  Lettres  Persanes,  Paris,  1841. 
Montglave.     Notices,  in  Lettres  Persanes,  ed.  Dauthereau,  Paris, 

1828. 
Oncken.     Zeitalter  Friedrichs  des  Grossen,  i  Bd.,  Berlin,  1881. 
Petit  de  Julleville.     Hist,  de  la  Langue  et  de  la  Litt.  Fr.,  Tome 

VI,  Paris,  1898. 
Picot.     Voyages  de  Montesquieu,  in  Compte  rendu  de  I'Acad^mie 

des  Sciences  Morales  et  Politiques.     CXLVI,  42-51. 
Pietsch.     Ueber  das  Verhaltnis  der  Politischen  Theorie  Locke's 

zu  Montesquieu's    Lehre  von  der  Theilung  der  Gewalten. 

Breslau,  1887.     (Berlin  Diss.) 
Riaux.     Notice  sur  Montesquieu,  Paris,  1849. 
Sainte-Beuve.      Causeries   du    Lundi,    passim,   esp.   Tom.    vii. 

Paris,  1852  ff. 
Saint-Girons.     Essai  sur  la  Separation  des  Pouvoirs.    Paris,  1881. 
Saintsbury.     History  of  Criticism  and  Literary  Taste  in  Europe. 

Vol.  II.     New  York,  1902. 
Sakmann.     Voltaire   als  Kritiker  Montesquieus,  in  Archiv  fiir 

das  Studium  der  Neueren  Sprachen,  cxiii,  374  ff. 
Sayous.     Le  Dixhuiti^me  Si^cle  a  PEtranger.     2  vols.     Paris, 

1871. 
Sch^rer.     Comment   il  faut  lire  Montesquieu,  in  Etudes   sur  la 

Litterature  Contemporaine.    Paris,  1889.    Tom.  ix,  238-54. 
Solignac.     Eloge  Historique  de  M.  le  President  de  Montesquieu. 

Nancy,  1759. 
Sorel.     Montesquieu.     2nd  ed.     Paris,  1889.     (Gr.  Ecr.  Fr.) 
Taine.     Les  Origines   de  la  France  Contemporaine :    L'Ancien 

Regime,  6th  ed.     Paris,  1891. 
Thomas.     Vieilles  Lunes  d'un  Avocat.  Premier  Quartier.    Paris, 

1863. 
Vian,     Histoire  de  Montesquieu.     Paris,  1878. 


The  Aesthetic  Doetrine  of  Montesquieu,  5 

Villate.     Essai     Historique     et    Philosophique     sur    le    Goiit. 

Amsterdam  and  Paris,  1736. 
Villemain.     Eloge  de  Montesquieu,     Paris,  1816. 
Tableau  de  la  Litterature  au  xviiime  Siecle.     Tom.  v, 

Paris,  1854. 
Voltaire.     Ed.  Didot,  13  vols.     Paris,  1874.    (Tom.  ii,  Diction- 

naire    Philosophique ;    Tom.  v,  Commentaire  sur   L'Esprit 

des  Lois ;  Tom.  vi,  Dialogues  d'  A,  B,  C.) 
Walckanaer.     Montesquieu,     in     Bibliographie     Universelle     of 

Michaud.     Tom.  xxix. 
Z^vort.     Montesquieu.     Paris,  1887.     (Coll.  des  clas.  pop.) 


Contents  of  Laboulaye — Oeuvres  Compl^jtes. 

(The  references  in  the  present  study  are  to  the  volumes  and 
pages  of  this  edition ;  consequently,  by  glancing  at  the  following 
table,  it  may  readily  be  seen  just  what  work  of  Montesquieu  or  of 
his  commentators  is  quoted.) 

Montesquieu's  own  writings  are  italicized. 
I.  i-vii,    "  Avertissement." 

1-26,    Eloge  by  Maupertuis. 
27-45,    "  Preface  de  Fediteur.'^ 
47-49,    Quelques  Reflexions  sur  les  Lettres  persanes. 
51—490,    Lettres  persanes.     {L.  P.) 
II.  1-8,    ^^  Preface  de  TMiteur." 

9—11,    Preface  du  traducteur. 
15-54,    Le  Temple  de  Gnide.     {T.  G.) 
57—59,    C^phise  et  F Amour. 
63-100,    "  Le  Temple  de  Gnide  mis  en  ver  par  L^nard." 
103-113,    "  Preface  de  Tediteur.'' 
115—326,    Considerations  sur  les  causes  de  la  Grandeur  des 

Romains  et  de  leur  Decadence.     (G.  D.  R.) 
329-332,    "  Avertissement  de  TMiteur.'' 
333-342,    Dialogue  de  Sylla  et  d^Eucrate. 
351—355,    Lysimaque. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctnne  of  Montesquieu, 


359-374, 

377-378, 

381-382, 

383-428, 

III.        i-lxix, 

3-62, 


65-80, 

83-88, 

89-383, 

1-474, 

1-498, 

1-93, 

97-100, 

101-113, 

115-137, 


IV. 

V. 

VI. 


VII. 


141-203, 
205-208, 
209-237, 
239-243, 

245-246, 
249-312, 

313-322, 
323-330, 
331-333, 

335-505, 

i— iii, 

1-95, 

96-112, 

113-114, 

115-147, 


Dissertation  sur  la  politique  des  Romains  dans  la 

religion. 
Tihb-e  et  Louis  XL 
"  Avis  de  TMiteur." 
Arsace  et  Lsm^ie.     Histoire  Orientale, 
"  Introduction  k  PEsprit  des  Lois." 
"Analyse  raisonn^e  de  TEsprit  des  Lois,"  by 

Bertolini. 
"  Analyse  de  I'Esprit  des  Lois,"  by  D'Alembert. 
Preface — Avertissement  de  Fauteur, 
r Esprit  des  Lois  {E,  X.),  Books  i-x. 
V Esprit  des  Lois,  Books  xi-xxi. 
V Esprit  des  Lois,  Books  xxii-xxx. 
V Esprit  des  Lois,  Book  xxxi. 
"  Preface  de  P§diteur." 
"  Lettre  au  P.  B.  J." 
"Exaraen     critique    de    PEsprit     des    Lois." 

(Nouvelles  EcclSsiastiques.) 
Defense  de  V Esprit  des  Lois, 
Eclaircissements  sur  P  Esprit  des  Lois. 
"  R^ponse  h  la  Defense  de  FEsprit  des  Lois." 
"  Remerciement  sincere  a  un  homme  charitable." 

(Voltaire.) 
"  L' Esprit  des  Lois  en  vers."     (Bonneval.) 
"Suite  de  la  Defense  de   TEsprit   des  Lois." 

(La  Beaumelle.) 
"  Lettres  d'Helvetius." 
"  Montesquieu  et  la  censure." 
"Note   sur   Fouvrage   in^dit   de    Montesquieu 

intitule  sur  les  Finances  de  VEspagne.^^ 
"  Table  analytique  et  alphab^tique." 
"  Preface  de  Fediteur." 
Discours  AcadSmiques, 
Eloge  de  Berwick. 
"  Avertissement  de  Fediteur." 
Essai  sur  le  Gout. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

149-181,  Pens^es  Diver ses, 

183-196,  Notes  sur  V Angleterre. 

197-204,  Poesies, 

205-208,  "  Preface  de  TMiteur/' 

209-210,  "Avis  de  T^diteur  de  1767." 

2 1 1-456,  Lettres  famili^res. 

457-458,  "  Preface  de  Fediteur." 

459-488,  Voyage  d  Paphos.     (  F.  a  P.) 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 


CHAPTER   II. 
INTRODUCTORY. 

Modem  criticism  justly  demands  some  account  of  a  writer's 
artistic  ideas,  before  proceeding  to  a  determination  of  his  literary 
worth.  That  is  partly  in  fairness  to  the  author's  aims,  partly  in 
elucidation  of  his  individual  expression.  From  either  point  of 
view,  or  else  from  its  historical  interest,  more  perhaps  than  from 
its  intrinsic  value,  a  study  of  Montesquieu's  Aesthetic  Doctrine 
may  prove  worth  while. 

No  such  study  has  been  undertaken — indeed  hardly  a  complete 
successful  attempt  has  been  made  to  discuss  Montesquieu's  import- 
ance and  raulc  strictly  as  a  litterateur}  Much  has  been  written 
on  him  from  the  standpoints  of  jurisprudence,  of  political  science, 
and  of  philosophical  history.  We  have  biographies,  commentaries, 
polemical  treatises.  But  we  have  only  general  essays  and  chapters 
on  his  unique  position  in  French  letters,  his  occupation  of  the 
debatable  lands  between  the  literature  of  knowledge  and  the 
literature  of  power.  It  will  be  part  of  our  task  to  indicate  that 
position,  while  rendering  more  precise  that  distinction. 

By  way  of  prelude,  some  setting  forth  of  the  capital  points  in 
regard  to  the  man  and  his  mind,  his  period  and  his  precursors, 
seems  indispensable.  There  are  certain  well  attested  facts  and 
generally  accepted  theories  that  may  give  a  warranted  a  pHori 
conception  of  his  doctrine. 

It  will  be  well  to  bear  in  mind  on  the  one  hand,  such  names  as 

*  The  word  is  used  here  designedly  in  a  linaited  sense.  The  admirable  work  of 
M.  Sorel  (Grands  Ecrivains  series)  comes  as  near  as  any  to  the  standpoint  that  I 
have  in  mind.  But  that  naturally,  besides  its  brevity,  is  more  general  and 
biographical.  The  tendency  has  been  to  regard  our  author  as  still  greater  in  the 
field  of  European  thought  than  in  that  of  French  Literature.  (Brunetiere,  Et. 
OriL,  IV,  p.  265.  ) 


The  Aesthetie  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  9 

Montaigne,  La  Bruy^re,  Mac^hiavelli,  such  points  as  the  sway  of 
classicis^i  and  the  influence  of  philosophers;  on  the  other,  to 
remember  the  eighteenth  century  contempt  of  religion  and  the 
eighteenth  century  fetish  of  formalism,  the  predominance  of  head 
over  heart,  of  manners  over  morals,  the  license  of  the  Regency, 
the  reign  of  the  salon,  of  woman,  of  conversation — the  popular- 
ization of  knowledge,  the  beginnings  of  method,  the  dawn  of 
cosmopolitanism,  the  constant  appeal  to  "  good  sense  '^  and  "  good 
people/'  For  his  own  part,  we  cannot  insist  too  strongly  on  his 
manysidedness.  We  have  in  his  life,  successively  and  interfused, 
the  libertine,  the  man  of  the  w^orld,  the  man  of  taste  ;  the  observer 
of  manners,  i\\Q  traveller,  the  country  gentleman ;  the  student  and 
the  thinker  ;  the  legist,  the  economist,  the  natural  scientist,  the 
historical  philosopher.  For  his  ideas,  we  have  a  strong  tendency 
towards  the  positivist  and  utilitarian  point  of  view,  which  con- 
siders religion  as  a  ressort  and  sentiment  a  superfluity ;  ^  but  we 
have  kindly  sympathies  ^  and  charitable  impulses.^  There  is  the 
desire  of  order,  and  the  love  of  liberty — the  impartiality  which 
admits  despotism  ^  or  Bayle,^  with  the  independence  which  admires 
genius,^  extols  England^  and  severely  criticises  Louis  XIV.^ 
None  so  quick  to  rail  against  esprity^  and  none  so  ready  to  use  it. 
An  enlightened  prophecy  ^^  wars  with  the  credulity  of  an  arri^L 
Shrewd  common  sense  ^^  contrasts  with  the  noblest  judgments. — 
Finally,  he  is  an  aristocratic  humanitarian — which  phrase,  if  any, 
may  give  his  definition,  his  limitations,  and  his  faculU  maitresse, 

^  VII,  150-1 — ''  J'ai  4t6  dans  ma  jeunesse  assez  heureux  pour  m'attacher  a  des 
femmes  que  j'ai  cru  qui  m'aimaient ;  d^s  quej'ai  cess^  de  le  croire,  je  m'en  suis 
d^tache  soudain  ....  n'ayant  jamais  eu  de  chagrin  qu'une  heure  de  lecture  n'ait 
dissip^."     Cf.  VII,  152. 

'  VII,  153 — "  Je  suis  amoureux  de  I'amiti^." 

»Cf.  in/.,  p.  11. 

^  E.  L.J  passim,  Arsace  et  Ismenie. 

s  V,  125  ;  VI,  152-3.  «Cf.  inf.,  pp.  53,  81. 

7 IV,  343-356  ;  vii,  183-196.  ^j,  144-5  ;  vii,  166. 

9  =  wit,  cf.  inf.,  p.  89  f. 

^•^  vii,  194 — '*  je  crois  que  si  quelque  nation  est  abandonn^e  de  ses  colonies,  cela 
commencera  par  la  nation  anglaise." 

"  Disposition  of  his  wine — his  law-suits. 


10  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

The  very  moderation  of  his  mind,  that  tolerance  which  is 
perhaps  its  prime  characteristic,  blurs  his  positive  traits  and 
causes  us  to  doubt  any  definite  fixed  system.  As  a  matter  of 
fact,  he  has  many  systems,  numerous  as  his  sym])athies.^  Impelled 
towards  a  limited  monarchy  by  his  admiration  for  England,  by  his 
love  of  a  machine  perfect  in  checks  and  balances,  by  his  aris- 
tocratic leanings,  he  is  yet  disposed  toward  democracy  by  his 
consideration  for  the  race  and  his  contempt  of  political  liberty. 
This  is  a  major  instance  of  his  magnificent  trimming,  though  it  is 
not  the  only  one.  He  believed  few  things  absolutely.  The  best 
government,  he  holds,  is  that  which  best  suits  its  people ;  and  laws 
are  relative  to  occasions  and  circumstances. 

He  was  an  observer  in  the  field  of  social  and  psychological 
phenomena.  He  has  appreciated  the  Cartesian  method  in  a 
striking  way,  and  that  same  method  may  have  inspired  and 
partly  governed  his  own  procedure.  Animated  by  the  spirit  of 
intellectual  curiosity,  that  "  noble  inquietude "  ^  which  propels 
towards  knowledge,  he  turned  first  to  the  natural  sciences  and 
then  to  the  domains  of  history  and  politics,  in  search  always  of 
the  fruitful  fact,  leading  inductively  to  the  sound  principle.  He 
was  not  sufficiently  rigid.  Not  all  of  his  facts  will  bear  scrutiny — 
indeed  he  condemned  detail  in  itself^ — and  not  all  of  his  general- 
izations are  sufficiently  founded,  or,  again,  of  the  highest  import. 
Where  he  comes  nearest  truth  is  on  the  comfortable  middle  ground, 
equally  remote  from  the  highest  philosophy  and  the  minutest  tech- 
nical knowledge,  but  the  ground  of  sane,  wise,  almost  every-day 
observation  and  experience,  unified  into  maxims  and  secondary 
principles.  He  chose  the  better  before  the  best,  the  opportune 
and  the  possible  before  the  remote  ideal.* 

His  human  value,  his  human  instincts  are  the  points  on  which 
I  must  insist.  To  vary  the  moty  he  loved  humanity  and  humanity 
le  lui  a  bien  rendu.     This  is  seen  in  such  things  as  his  opposition 

^  He  has  himself  furnished  another  apology  for  what  must  often  seem  at  first 
mere  contradiction  and  inconsistency.     (P.  &  F.,  ii.  25.)    Cf.  inf.,  p.  120. 
2  VII,  17. 

^  As  in  the  case  of  his  dislike  for  legal  procedure,   (vii,  152.)     Cf.  inf.,  p.  105. 
*St.-Girons,  Essai,  p.  101. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  11 

to  slavery  and  to  the  cruelties  of  the  penal  code.^  Ste-Beuve  finds 
in  the  Esprit  des  Lois  too  much  faith  in  human  nature,  a  tendency 
towards  that  ^^defaut  radical ''  of  an  easy  optimism.^ 

This  human  touch  led  him  to  manifestations  of  generosity  in 
his  life  and  actions.  The  trait  is  sufficiently  shown  in  his  help 
of  Piron  and  of  the  Marseilles  boatman."^  Yet  he  was  "aimable 
avec  secheresse  et  bienfaisant  avec  hauteur. ''  * 

With  feeling,  the  case  is  again  different.  He  felt  as  far  as  this 
common  humanity  called  for  and  no  whit  further.  Of  sentiment 
or  sensibility  there  is  hardly  more  than  a  trace  in  his  life  or  his 
writings.  For  others  he  was  sympathetic — "je  n'ai  jamais  vu 
couler  de  larmes  sans  en  ^tre  attendri.^  But  for  himself,  the 
stoicism  which  he  so  admired,^  together  with  his  essential  world- 
liness,  forbade  the  search  or  the  indulgence  of  the  feelings. 

''Ma  machine  est  si  heureusement  construite,  que  je  suis  frapp^  par  tous  les 
objets  assez  vivement  pour  qu'ils  puissent  me  donner  du  plaisir,  pas  assez  pour 
qu'ils  puissent  me  causer  de  la  peine."  ' 

The  worldliness  and  cautiousness,  "  la  peur  d'etre  dupe,"  which 
prevented  free  expression,  appear  particularly  in  the  latter  part 
of  his  life,  when  he  regretted  some  of  his  earlier  boutadesy  sought 
more  for  tempered  statement,  and  became  generally  more  of  a 
conservative.  But  tradition  was  always  a  force  which  he  was 
ready  to  respect.  That  is  why  he  clung  to  classicism,  to  monar- 
chism ;  and  hence  his  famous  recommendation  to  touch  laws  only 
"  d'une  main  tremblante.'' 

His  fondness  for  antiquity,  which  is  the  last  of  his  greater  traits, 
springs  more  or  less  from  the  same  disposition  of  mind.^  This 
antiquity  which  so  enchanted  him,^  which  inspired  him  to  write 

^  Beccaria,  Tratatto  del  delitii  e  delle  pene,  largely  derives  from  M.'s  views  on  this 
subject. 

2  a  deL.,  VII,  68,  76. 

^Cf.  Vian,  pp.  170,  337-8.  An  anecdote  which  has  furnished  the  subject  of  no 
less  than  four  plays. 

*Brunetiere,  Rev.,  p.  79. 

^vii,  153.  «v,  130-1.  'VII,  150. 

^  Doumic  would  also  credit  him  with  a  taste  for  things  exotic,  with  a  natural 
cosmopolitanism.     (  Voy.  de  Mont.,  p.  927). 

»vn,  158. 


12  Tlie  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

his  first  juvenile  work  to  show  that  his  beloved  pagans  were  not 
damned,  which  proved  a  guiding  taste  throughout  his  life,  will 
come  in  for  abundant  comment  later  on.^ 

Such  seem  the  prime  characteristics  of  a  nature  as  complex  and 
manifold  as  the  century  itself.  It  will  already  be  seen  what  diffi- 
culties beset  our  path.  If  it  is  no  easy  task  to  bring  order  and 
derive  sure  principles  from  a  period  so  smooth  on  the  surface,  so 
intricate  in  its  depths ;  if  it  seems  perilous  to  evolve  leading  forces 
in  the  career  of  a  writer  who  touched  life  at  so  many  points  :  we 
may  be  sure  that  it  is  far  harder  to  find  and  verify  a  symmetrical 
system  of  aesthetics  whose  component  parts  are  scattered  over 
thousands  of  pages,  usually  disjointed,  often  hasty  judgments,  not 
always  deducible  from  his  own  basic  views,  and  seldom  subser- 
vient to  the  canons  of  orthodox  and  technical  criticism. 

To  attribute  unvarying  consistency  and  immovable  order  to  the 
author  oiV Esprit  des  Lois  would  seem  futile.  Much  less  can  one 
expect  to  find  these  qualities  when  he  writes  in  a  domain  not 
peculiarly  his  own,  to  which  indeed  his  one  formal  contribution  ^ 
in  no  wise  exposes  all  his  theory  or  constitutes  the  starting  point 
for  all  his  deductions.  At  any  rate  no  attempt  will  be  made  to 
create  harmony  where  harmony  is  non-existent.  Whatever  of 
conformity,  cohesion  or  clearness  may  be  found  in  the  following 
pages  will  be  there  as  the  result  not  of  invention  but  of  arrange- 
ment and  coordination. 

Closely  connected  with  the  thinker's  claim  to  be  held  an  artist, 
and  an  aesthetician — a  claim  which  must  in  the  end  be  upheld  or 
dismissed^ — arises  the  other  old  question  of  the  definition  and 
boundaries  of  art  itself.  We  shall  see  that  Montesquieu  conceives 
broadly  of  the  term  and  vaguely  of  its  limits.  If  in  the  course  of 
the  discussion  it  becomes  necessary  to  assume  a  more  precise  posi- 
tion or  a  better  based  standpoint,  this  will  be  done  with  due  regard 
to  the  ranking  allowed  on  his  part  to  art's  relatives  and  subordi- 
nates.    When  modern  opinions  are  still  bewildered  and  irrecon- 

^  Cf.  inf.,  pp.  49,  125.  ^Essai  mr  le  GoUL 

^Cf.m/,  pp.  201-3. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  13 

cilable,  we  cannot  look  for  absoluteness  from  an  eighteenth  century 
philosopher. 

A  last  reserve  must  be  taken  against  any  universal  sincerity  of 
his  utterances.  The  French  leaning  for  epigrams/  well  pro- 
nounced in  our  author,  must  at  times  have  led  him  into  exaggera- 
tions and,  once  more,  inconsistencies.  He  was  not  exactly  addicted 
to  posing.  But  he  was  a  lover  of  vigorous  statement  ^  and,  in  his 
youth,  decidedly  frondeur. 

Before  passing  on  to  the  material,  it  may  be  well  to  give  two 
cautions  as  to  the  divisions  and  procedure  of  this  study.  The 
plan,  except  in  broad  aspects,  cannot  be  wholly  logical,  since  it 
must  largely  follow  the  material ;  and  in  following  the  material, 
in  its  intricate  interrelations,  many  repetitions  of  statements  and 
principles  have  seemed  unavoidable  for  full  treatment.  Hence  a 
host  of  cross-references  and  foot-notes.  But  the  effort  has  never- 
theless been  made  to  give  each  leading  principle  its  special 
handling  in  its  proper  place. 


iCf.  inf.,  p.  118.  »Cf.  in/.,  p.  195. 


14  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 


CHAPTER  III. 
THE  MATERIAL. 

Several  thousand  references  to  things  more  or  less  artistic  have 
been  collected.  These  are  unequally  distributed  in  the  various 
writings,  the  bulk  of  them  being  found  in  the  Collection  Borde- 
laise,  the  Letires  persanes  and  the  Essai  sur  le  GoUt.  In  the 
Romains  there  is  almost  nothing,  and  in  V Esprit  des  Lois  much 
less  than  one  would  expect  from  so  catholic  a  treatise.  The 
character  of  these  works  is  too  well-known  to  require  comment. 
In  his  lighter  productions — Temple  de  Gnide,  Voyage  d  Paphos, 
Arsace  et  Ismenie^  etc. — the  interest  centers  chiefly  on  the  applica- 
tion (or  extension)  of  his  principles,  and  accordingly  these  jeux 
d^ esprit  will  more  appropriately  come  in  for  comment  in  the  final 
chapter.  His  Letters  ^  help  us  but  little — though  evidently  what 
we  find  here  contains  most  of  frankness  and  brings  most  convic- 
tion. The  Fensies  diverses  and  the  Notes  sur  V Angleterre,  fruitful 
in  many  things,  contain  a  respectable  quantity  of  pertinent  matter. 
But  it  is  in  the  three  titles  first  named  that  we  are  to  look  for  the 
most  numerous  and  probably  the  most  significant  and  characteristic, 
expressions  on  the  subject.  We  may  take  these  in  chronological 
order. 

The  Letires  persanes  are  said  to  have  been  nine  years  in  the 
writing  ^  and  to  have  been  carefully  revised  four  or  five  times. 
That  their  author  subsequently  regretted  their  publication,^  that 
he  considered  them  a  sin  of  his  youth,^  is  beyond  doubt.     But  it  is 

^"Sa  correspondance  n' off  re  qu'un  mediocre  interet  ....  n'etait  le  grand 
nom  qui  la  signe,  il  ne  vaudrait  reellement  pas  la  peine  de  la  lire." — Brune- 
tiSre,  Bev.  des  2  mondes,  xxxiii,  224. 

2  Vian,  p.  53. 

'  Especially  when  they  stood  between  him  and  the  Academy. 

*Cf.  inf.,  p.  189. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  15 

also  beyond  doubt  that  they  adequately  and  frankly  express  that 
youth,  in  all  of  its  liberty  and  libertinagej  its  raillery,  scepticism 
and  iconoclasm,  its  contemptuous  clear-sighted  vision  and  its  power 
of  representation.  The  book  has  been  held  to  deepen  in  thought 
towards  the  close/  and  it  is  just  in  these  later  letters  that  much  of 
our  matter  lies.^  On  the  whole,  one  is  bound  to  abide  by  the 
Lettres  persanes  as  giving  Montesquieu's  full  and  free  dicta — not 
quite  *  juvenile',  but  not  altogether  mature — especially  on  literary 
subjects. 

The  Essai  sur  le  Gout  is  proposed  for  the  EncyclopSdie — where 
in  curtailed  form  it  was  later  published  ^ — in  a  letter  to  d'Alem- 
bert  of  1753.* 

"L' esprit  que  j'ai  est  un  moule  ;  onn'en  tire  jamais  que  les  memes  portraits 
.  .  .  Ainsi,  si  vous  voulez  de  moi,  laissez  a  mon  esprit  le  choix  de  quelque  article  ; 
et  si  vous  voulez,  ce  choix  se  fera  chez  Madame  du  Deffand  avec  du  marasquin  •  .  . 
moi  je  ne  puis  pas  me  corriger,  parce  que  je  chante  toujours  la  mdme  chose.  II 
me  vient  dans  1' esprit  que  je  pourrai  prendre  peut-etre  Gout,  et  que  je  prouverai 
bien  que  difficile  est  proprie  conimunia  dicere.^' 

This  is  rich  in  suggestion.  It  would  seem,  first,  that  he  alludes 
to  the  Gout  as  an  old  paper,  which  had  probably  been  lying  in  his 
desk  for  some  time.  Vian  thinks — though  apparently  without 
definite  proof — that  it  was  largely  composed  at  Florence  in  1728.^ 
There  is  a  letter  ^  from  Florence  of  that  year,  in  which  Montes- 
quieu extols  the  fine  arts  and  declares  that  his  eyes  are  just  opened 
to  their  beauties.  This  is  to  be  taken  with  special  reference  to 
painting  and  sculpture,  concerning  which  the  Go4t  has  much  to 
say.  Perhaps  then  the  composition  of  the  paper  may  be  referred 
to  the  period  of  his  visit  to  Italy,  or  to  a  time  shortly  afterwards, 
when  the  memory  of  the  visit  was  still  fresh. 

The  fact  that  d' Alembert  obtained  the  sketch  only  after  Montes- 
quieu's death,  and  states  ^  that  it  was  "  trouv^  imparfait  dans  ses 

^  "A  mesure  que  le  livre  avance,  le  ton  s'^leve,  les  questions  graves  sont 
touchees"— Faguet,  XVIIIe  siMe,  p.  153.  Also  Sorel,  p.  36— Yet  the  worst  of 
the  harem  affair  is  at  the  end.     Cf.  inf.,  pp.  191,  194. 

2 1,  pp.  416-427. 

^  Tome  VII,  1775.     The  last  four  divisions  were  subsequently  added. 

*vii,  421-2.  6  p.  122,  but  cf.  p.  314, 

«vu,  226-227.  cf.  inf.,  p.  55.  '' Eloge,  xxxiv. 


16  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

papiers  "  ^  hardly  indicates  a  later  date.  But  it  does  show  that  the 
final  revision  never  took  place.  Consequently,  while  we  are  to 
consider  the  Gout  as  the  product  of  a  maturing  mind/  it  cannot  be 
held  to  contain  his  last  deliberate  judgments. 

This  lack  of  finish,  together  with  the  difference  in  date,  will 
partly  account  for  the  discrepancies  between  the  views  advocated 
here  and  those  of  the  Lettres  persanes.  Whatever  may  have  been 
true  of  1753,  his  mind  in  the  preceding  years  cannot  have  been  the 
changeless  "  mould  ^'  he  thought  it.  We  are  unable,  in  spite  of 
Vian,^  to  take  this  incomplete  and  often  irrelevant  ^  sketch  as  the 
basis  of  Montesquieu's  aesthetic  system.  Never  does  he  see  art 
steadily  and  see  it  whole.  One  fourth  of  the  discussion  is  devoted 
to  women — apparently  as  exponents  and  examples  of  creative 
'^  beauty.^'  ^  He  plays  with  other  abstractions.  "  Variety,'^  thinks 
Vian,*^  is  "  son  grand  principe."  Villemain  ^  notes  rather  "  une 
pr^f^rence  marquee  pour  cette  finesse  delicate,  pour  ces  pens^es 
inattendues,  ces  contrastes  brillauts  qui  eblouissent  I'esprit."  In 
order  to  avoid  the  reproach  contained  in  the  phrase  communia 
dicere,  he  enunciates  many  strange  and  striking  thoughts  which  we 
shall  abundantly  encounter. 

The  best  part  of  the  material  really  comes  from  the  Collection 
Bordelaise.^  The  recent  publication  of  this  Collection — extending 
from  1891  to  1901 — has  given  rise  to  much  interest  and  comment. 
It  is  known  that  for  the  last  century  persistent  efforts  have  been 
made  to  approach  and  give  to  light  the  posthumous  writings  of 
Montesquieu.     Finally  his   descendants   have   consented   to   the 

^  "  L'auteur  n'a  pas  eu  le  temps  d'y  mettre  lademiSre  main  ;  mais  les  premieres 
pens^es  des  grands  maitres  m^ritent  d'etre  conserv^es,'  &c.     vii,  113. 

Me<.  31  in  1728.  »P.  314. 

*  "There  is  hardly  any  definite  reference  to  literature  at  all." — Saintsbury,  HiM. 
of  CnL,  p.  513  ff. 

°This  may  be  the  effect  of  Mme.  Deffand's  ''  marasquin."  He  says  elsewhere 
(IV,  312) — "La  soci^t^  des  femmes  g^te  les  moeurs,  et  forme  le  go<it." 

6  P.  314. 

"^  Eloge,  p.  67. — "  Ces  subtils  raffinements  qui  deparent  quelquefois  le  style  de 
Montesquieu  sont  dict^s  par  un  systeme."  If  this  is  true  at  all,  certainly  no  such 
complete  system  can  be  derived  from  the  Goitt. 

^  See  Bibliography. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine:  of  Montesquieu.  17 

publication,  and  the  best  part  of  the  mss.,  under  adequate  collabo- 
rate editorship,  have  now  appeared/ 

The  Collection  consists  largely  of  a  record  of  the  President's 
travels ;  his  fragmentary  writings  ;  and  a  host  of  reflections  on 
all  possible  topics,  systematically  arranged  under  appropriate 
headings  by  his  editors.  The  value  of  these  volumes  has  been 
variously  judged.  Ste-Beuve,  who  would  have  given  the  Esprit 
des  Lois  for  the  Voyages,'^  finds  himself  at  odds  with  the  best 
critical  opinion  on  the  actual  publications.  "  Puisque  nous  avons 
les  livres,  a  quoi  bon  les  carnets  ? "  demands  Doumic,  and  pro- 
ceeds to  declare  that  only  the  Pensees  et  Fragments  bring  us 
anything  really  new  on  Montesquieu,  the  man  and  his  mind.^ 
Lanson  is  of  the  same  opinion  for  the  bulk  of  the  Melanges  in^ditesJ" 

AVh ether  or  not  the  whole  collection  is  really  important — and 
on  the  side  of  its  significance  much  of  course  may  be  said — there 
can  be,  little  doubt  that  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  study,  it  is 
in  the  highest  degree  valuable.  Its  body  furnishes  a  larger 
amount  of  aesthetic  and  literary  comment  than  will  be  found  in 
all  of  Montesquieu's  previous  works  put  together.  This  comment, 
with  the  exception  of  a  treatise  on  the  Gothic  and  some  tolerably 
connected  remarks  on  the  Florentine  and  Roman  galleries,  is  still 
mainly  in  fragmentary  form. 

The  portions  of  the  Collection  which  chiefly  concern  us  are : 
(1)  the  treatise  De  la  manih-e  gothique ;  ^  (2)  the  artistic  observa- 
tions made  in  Italy,  especially  those  on  Florence ;  ^  (3)  the  sections 
devoted  to  Lettres  et  arts,  in  the  Peiisees  et  Fragments  J 

The  first  of  these,  which  will  be  more  fittingly  criticised  later,^ 

^  There  are  still  two  apparent  exceptions — the  Spidlegium  or  record  of  our 
author's  readings,  and  some  familiar  Letters.  An  edition  of  the  latter  is  promised 
by  M.  Celeste. 

2  C.  de  L.  VII,  61.  2  Doumic,  Rev.  des  2  mondes,  cxLir,  925. 

*Bev.  univ.  1893,  p.  386.  But  cf.  p.  391.  Brunetiere  had  already  emitted 
a  prophecy  just  contrary  to  that  of  Ste-Beuve  {Et.Crit.  iv,  244). 

5  Vmj.,  n,  367-375. 

®  Voy.f  I,  passim — esp.  pp.  155 ff.,  226 ff.  ;  Voy.,  ii,  3-126  {Voyage  en  Italic^ 
suite)  ;  Florence,  Voy.,  ii,  301-363. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  3-79.     This  is  almost  entirely  devoted  to  literary  discussions, 

8Cf.  inf.  p.  71. 


18  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

is  only  an  ^bauche  on  the  Gothic  style,  containing  at  the  end  some 
disjointed  remarks  on  the  Orient  and  on  knowledge  generally. 
Montesquieu's  editor  thinks  that  these  were  added  "  apres  coup," 
and  that  the  whole  text  was  written  shortly  after  or  during  his 
Italian  travels.^  Much  of  it  is  identical  with  portions  of  Florence, 
and  this  seems  the  part  most  carefully  corrected. 

The  amount  of  criticism,  more  especially  of  description,  on  the 
plastic  arts  is  seen  to  be  considerable  in  quantity.  It  was  written 
nearly  entirely  with  reference  to  his  Italian  journey,  since  the 
Voyage  en  AUemagne  ^  contains  practically  nothing,  and  the  Notes 
sur  VAngleterrCy  already  known,  are  all  the  record  that  we  have  of 
his  residence  in  England.  This  artistic  comment  was  largely 
written  on  the  spot,  immediately  after  visits  to  the  various 
galleries,  where  he  was  under  the  guidance  of  cicerones. 

Most  important  of  all  are  the  Fensees  on  Literature.  These, 
which  contain  much  of  his  wiser  and  saner  views,  differ  in  some 
cases  from  his  presumably  earlier  utterances,^  showing  once  more 
that  his  mind  was  no  invariable  moule. 

It  may  be  well  to  give  the  divisions  by  which  his  editors  have 
classified  these  scattered  thoughts.*  This  will  show  the  range  of 
the  observations  : 


1. 

Langage  et  Langues 

2. 

Ecriture 

3. 

Art  d'^crire 

4. 

Genres  litteraires 

6. 

Litt^ratures  diverses 

6. 

Auteurs  anciens 

7. 

Auteurs  du  XVr  Si^cle  et  du  XVIP 

8. 

Auteurs  du  XYIII^  Siecle 

9. 

Livres  k  faire 

10. 

Esth6tique 

^  Voy.,  II,  xvii-xviii.     {Description  des  MSS. ) 

2  Voy.,  II,  129-216.  3  j^  the  GoUt  and  the  X.  P. 

*  There  is  much  repetition,  both  as  between  this  and  the  Gout,  and  elsewhere. 
In  such  cases,  I  have  chosen  throughout  for  quotation  what  seems  the  fuller  or 
preferable  reading. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  19 

11.  Musique 

12.  Arts  plastiques. 

It  has  been  remarked  that  much  of  the  Collection/  and  much 
of  what  this  study  will  draw  therefrom  is  fragmentary  in  character. 
Accordingly,  it  will  be  best,  returning  to  the  Gout,  to  seek  mainly 
in  that  the  generalizations  and  principles  which  will  form  the 
necessary  beginning  of  an  aesthetic  theory.  What  our  author  has 
to  say  on  the  value  and  object  of  art,  its  qualities  and  relations,  as 
well  as  on  taste  itself  may  prove  of  some  interest  and  value. 


Most  of  the  articles  arclabelled  as  brouillcms. 


BOOK  II. 
ESTHETIC  DOOTEII^E-PEII^rCIPLES. 


CHAPTER  IV. 

ART— DESCRIPTION   AND   DIVISIONS. 

With  Montesquieu  the  terms  *  art '  and  '  arts '  are  of  the  widest 
inclusiveness.  He  has  left  no  direct  definition  of  the  word.  We 
would  formulate  one,  drawn  from  his  conception  and  usage,  some- 
what as  follows  :  the  arts  in  general  are  those  products  of  skill  and 
invention  which  furnish  pleasure  and  utility  to  humanity.  This 
is  the  thesis.  The  mechanical  and  industrial  arts  should  aim  at 
utility,  while  the  fine  arts  will  bring  both,  though  more  doctrinally 
pleasure.     He  has,  in  the  rough,  made  this  division  : 

"  Je  suppose,  Rh^di,  qu'on  ne  souffrit  dans  un  royaume  que  les  arts  absolument 
n^cessaires  a  la  culture des  terres,  qui  sont  pourtant  en  grand  nombre  ;  et  qu'on  en 
bannit  tous  ceux  qui  ne  servent  qu'st  la  volupt^  ou  ^  la  fantaisie  .  .  ."  ^ 

In  the  domain  of  utility  he  applies  the  word  in  such  uses  as  the 
art  mechanical,^  the  art  military  ^  or  naval,*  the  art  of  logic,^  of 
legal  procedure,^  of  medicine.^  All  of  these  are  permissible  uses.^ 
So  is  the  employment  of  the  word  in  the  sense  of  skill  or  address,^ 
as  the  art  of  commanding, ^^  of  dissimulation,"  of  bankers,^^  of 
ornament, ^^  and  even  of  genealogy  ^^  or  of  soothsaying.^"^  But 
Montesquieu  leaves  the  legitimate  meanings  when  he  extends  the 
mechanical  signification  and  makes  art  equivalent  to  industrie,  as 
Laboulaye  has  noticed  ^^ :  "  L'ouvrier  qui  a  donn6  a  ses  enfants  son 


1 1,  337.        ""i,  362 ;  m,  128.         ^iii,  317;  iv,  441,  443.  *iv,  443. 

^  V,  405.     These  references  might  be  indefinitely  extended. 
6  V,  347,  368.  "^  I,  420  ;  v,  401. 

i"i,  219;  II,  423.       ^^  i,  216;  ii,  377. 


20 


15 II,  362, 


8  Littr^, 

S.  V. 

9  Littr^,  s.  V. 

12  V,  24. 

13 1,  117;  203. 

16  V,  72 

;78; 

IV,  266. 

The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  21 

art  pour  heritage."  ^  Elsewhere  it  very  nearly  denotes  manufac- 
tures.^ It  is  even  broadened  sufficiently  to  signify  metier.^  In 
the  discussion  between  Rh^di  and  Usbek,  *  art  ^  is  taken  first  as 
meaning  'invention.'^  On  the  other  hand,  artisan  is  used  as 
equivalent  to  artiste^  and  to  ouvrier.^  These  latter  divergences 
will  serve  to  show  the  economist's  point  of  view. 

Of  the  other  kind  of  arts,  we  find  a  further  division  in  the 
introduction  to  Gout :  '^ 

''Lapo^sie,  la  peinture,  la  sculpture,  1' architecture,  la  musique,  la  danse,  les 
diff^rentes  sortes  de  jeux,  enfin  les  ouvrages  de  la  nature  et  de  I'art  peuvent  .  .  . 
donner  du  plaisir." 

He  refers  elsewhere  to  the  arts  of  criticising  ^  and  of  declamation.^ 
But  in  these  instances  the  word  has  more  than  a  savor  of  its  sense 
of  skill.  With  such  possible  exceptions  and  with  the  above 
inclusion  of  poetry,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  he  does  not  class  liter- 
ature formally  as  among  the  arts.  In  enumerations,  in  fact,  the 
two  are  contrasted.  ^^ 

By  the  inclusion  of  gaming  and  dancing  in  the  category  cited, 
we  can  see  that  he  makes  little  distinction  between  the  beaux  arts 
and  the  arts  d'agrSment.  And  the  reason  therefor  is  seen  in  his 
statements  of  the  object  of  art,  in  the  technical  sense  : 

* '  La  perfection  des  arts  est  de  nous  presenter  les  choses  telles  qu'elles  nous 
fassent  le  plus  de  plaisir  qu'  il  est  possible  ;  "  ^*  .  .  .  ' '  les  beaut^s  des  ouvrages  de 
I'art,  semblables  a  celles  de  la  nature,  ne  consistent  que  dans  les  plaisirs  qu'elles 
nous  font."  ^^ 

This  is  evidently  his  sincere  and  lasting  belief. 


*  V,  112,  cf.  II,  135,  where  the  terms  are  used  in  alternation. 

^P.  &F.,i,  162  ;  P.  &  jP.,  II,  214.  ^y,  438. 

*i,  331-2.  The  invention  of  powder  and  of  the  compass.  Also  P.  &  F.,  ii, 
196,  cf.  IV,  185 — "  des  machines  que  I'art  invente." 

^iii,  161.     In  I,  338,  a  painter  (artist)  is  called  an  artisan. 

^i,  336  ;  I,  159 — "II  n'y  a  pas  jusqu'  aux  plus  vils  artisans  qui  ne  disputent 
sur  r excellence  de  I'art  qu'ils  ont  choisi."  On  the  other  hand,  the  mere  observer 
is  a  vil  artiste  (vii,  53). 

'VII,  116.  ^P.  &F.,ii,26.  «  VII,  93. 

^°  VII,  93 — *  *  les  sciences  partout  encourag^es,  les  arts  proteges,  les  belles-lettres 
cultiv^es." 

"  VII,  118.  12  yjj^  123. 


22  The  Aesthetio  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 


CHAPTER  V. 
ART— ITS  OBJECT,  ORIGIN,  VALUE  AND  RELATIONS. 

He  has  developed  this  idea  of  pleasure — which  ranges  from 
amusement  to  volupt^ — quite  sufficiently.  He  even  excludes  as 
unessential  the  vision  of  a  "present  utility"  in  things  beautiful; 
if  they  bring  pleasure  that  is  enough.^  But  in  theorizing  still 
further  he  declares  that  of  the  two  kinds  of  men,  those  who  think 
and  those  who  amuse,^  he  personally  will  choose  the  former. — 
"  II  ne  s'agit  pas  de  faire  lire  mais  de  faire  penser."  ^  This, 
however,  is  a  late  and  very  lofty  ideal.  For  the  most  part  he 
recognizes — as  who  in  the  eighteenth  century  did  not? — the 
necessity  for  relaxation  and  varied  stimulus  even  in  his  most 
thoughtful  works.*  As  for  his  lighter  labors  they  are  designedly 
replete  with  what  Taine  calls  the  two  chief  literary  condiments 
of  the  century — scabrous  gakinterie  and  the  old  espnt  gaulois. 
Montesquieu  himself  has  said  it :  "  Vos  recherches  vous  feront 
lire  des  savants ;  et  un  trait  de  galanterie  vous  fera  lire  de  ceux 
qui  ne  le  sont  pas.''  ^  It  will  be  interesting  to  remember  this 
when  we  come  to  criticize  the  Lettres  persanes. 

If  it  is  true  then  that  the  soul  is  made  for  thought,®  it  is  also 
true  that  the  same  soul  comes  out  strongest  in  its  pleasures.^ 
This  soul  is  capable  of  enjoying  three  kinds  of  pleasures  :  its  own, 
or  the  spiritual  variety ;  the  physical  sort ;  and  those  springing 
from  habit.^  "  Les  sources  du  beau,  du  bon,  de  Fagr^able,  etc., 
sont  done  dans  nous-m^mes ;  et  en  chercher  les  raisons,  c'est 
chercher  les  causes  des  plaisirs  de  notre  ame."  ^  This  is  the 
subjective-objective  standpoint.  But  those  pleasures  which  are 
peculiar   to   the    independent  soul   are   such    ideas   as  curiosity, 

» VII,  115.  2  VII,  173.  «iv,  58. 

*The  curious  "Invocation  aux  Muses"  in  the  midst  of  E.  L.     (iv,  359-60.) 

»  VII,  284.  «  VII,  120.  'VII,  116.  syjj^  115. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  23 

aspiration,  generalization  and  analysis.^  Both  the  spiritual  and 
the  physical  are  natural  pleasures,  as  opposed  to  the  acquired.^ 
Yet  a  distinction  is  superfluous,  since  taste  is  concerned  indiffer- 
ently with  all  alike.^ 

All  this  would  square  with  his  belief  that  pleasure  can  be 
reasoned ;  *  and  where  it  is  not  founded  on  reason,  it  should  at 
least  depart  therefrom  as  little  as  possible.^ 

The  principle  of  amusement  which  holds  for  art  in  general 
holds  for  its  kinds  as  well.  If  pleasure  and  art  are  so  intimately 
associated,  if  they  are  united  on  more  than  one  occasion  almost  as 
syntactical  doublets,^  we  are  informed  in  detail  that  "Part  de 
nous  plaire  "  is  the  goal  alike  of  gardens  ^  and  of  geniuses ;  ®  of 
music  and  of  dancing ;  ^  that  the  best  writers  are  those  who  have 
pleased  most ;  ^  that  belles  lettres  are  read  for  agreeable  surprises.^® 
It  is  true  that  he  deprecates  the  part  of  raillery  and  badinage, 
particularly  in  conversation."  But  who  is  so  prompt  to  agree,  in 
principle  and  practice,  that  relaxation  counts  for  much  in  any 
work?^^  In  a  notable  passage,^^  where  he  gives  reasons  for  pre- 
ferring art  to  reality,  the  superiority  in  each  genre  is  that  of 
pleasure-giving  capacity. 

We  have  given  this  as  a  constant  attitude.  It  is  only  fair  to 
add  that  there  are  just  glimpses  of  a  forward  step  and  a  nobler 
view,  as  when  he  tells  the  Muses, — "  Vous  n'^tes  jamais  si 
divines  que  quand  vous  menez  a  la  sagesse  et  a  la  v^rit^  par  le 
plaisir."  ^*  Of  course,  as  to  actual  results,  this  is  the  spirit  that 
has  largely  dominated  him.  But  we  are  dealing  here  with  pro- 
fessed theory. 

The  question  arising  inevitably  after  such  a  prelude  is  :  What 


lyii,  116.  ^Yu,  117. 

'  Which  seems  a  poor  conclusion  after  so  much  philosophizing.  There  is  much 
half-baked  thought  and  abstract  bathos  in  the  Gout. 

*  "Souvent  notre  ame  se  compose  elle-m^me  des  raisons  de  plaisir."    vii,  131. 

^vii,  143.  6yjj^  130^  140.  7  VII,  130.  ^vn,  129. 

9 1,  57.  ^°  VII,  129.  "VII,  178. 

^'''It  is  necessary  to  "d^lasser  le  lecteur."  Apology  for  the  ''Invocation," 
IV,  359. 

i^P.  &F.,i,  290— quoted  inf.,  p.  30,  n.  5. 

^*iv,  360.     This  whole  "Invocation"  is  rich  in  material  and  suggestiveness. 


24  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

value  can  be  attached  to  a  thing  whose  principal  end  is  amuse- 
ment? This  question  he  has  attempted  to  answer;  and  in  the 
answer  we  shall  see  the  conflicting  standpoints  of  the  utilitarian 
and  of  the  homme  du  mUiei\ 

The  main  arguments  are  presented  in  the  debate  between  Usbek 
and  Rh^di.^    The  latter  first  submits  the  thesis  : — 

**Tu  m'as  beaucoup  parl^,  dans  une  de  tes  lettres,  des  sciences  et  des  arts 
cultiv^s  en  Occident.  Tu  me  vas  regarder  comme  un  barbare  :  mais  je  ne  sais  si 
Futility  que  Ton  en  retire  d^dommage  les  hommes  du  mauvais  usage  que  I'on  en 
fait  tous  les  jours."  ^ 

This  has  reference  to  "arts"  in  Montesquieu's  broadest  .sense; 
E,h6di  developes  it  for  invention  particularly.^  But  Usbek's 
reply,  by  equivocation  or  ignoratio  elenchiy  refutes  the  objection  for 
the  fine  arts  particularly,  though  he  still  includes  the  industries. 
It  seems  a  good  plea.     He  declares  : — 

"  Ou  tu  ne  penses  pas  a  ce  que  tu  dis,  on  bien  tu  fais  mieux  que  tu  ne  penses. 
Tu  as  quitt^  ta  patrie  pour  t'instruire  ;  et  tu  mdprises  toute  instruction  ;  tu  viens 
pour  te  former,  dans  un  pays  ou  I'on  cultive  les  beaux-arts  ;  et  tu  les  regardes 
comrae  pernicieux.  Te  le  dirai-je,  Rh^di?  je  suis  plus  d'accord  avec  toi,*  que 
tu  ne  I'es  avec  toi-m6me."  ° 

This  emphasizes  the  educative  value.  He  continues  :  "  As-tu  bien 
refl6chi  a  P6tat  barbare  et  malheureux  oil  nous  entrainerait  la  perte 
des  arts  ?  '^  We  would  be  no  better  than  monkeys,  who  yet  may 
be  passable  creatures  among  barbarians.®  Shall  we  then  consider 
the  example  of  these  primitive  peoples,  who  have  counted  for 
power  and  profit  only  after  they  have  learned  the  arts  ?  ^  As  to 
inventions,  their  evil  effects  must  be  only  occasional,  else  humanity 
would  not  suffer  them.®  And  as  to  the  supposed  softening  of  races 
and  the  fall  of  empires  : 

"Tu  paries  de  la  ruine  de  celui  des  anciens  Perses,  qui  fut  I'efifet  de  leur  mol- 
lesse' ;  mais  il  s'en  faut  bien  que  cet  exemple  decide,  puisque  les  Grecs  qui  les 


^  L.  P.  Lettera  cv-cvi.  These  passages,  like  the  "  Invocation"  and  the  satire 
on  writers  (Letters  cxxxiv-cxxxvii )  are  most  important  for  us. 

2 1,  331.  ,     3i^33i_3.    Cf.  sup.,  p.  21,  n.  4. 

^  i.  e.,  'with  your  better  judgment.'  It  should  be  remembered  that  Usbek  is 
generally  considered  to  speak  largely  for  Montesquieu. 

^1,  334.  6 1,  335. 

'i.  e.,  as  first  and  principal  cause — unconnected  with  arts.     But  cf.  inf.,  p.  27. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  25 

vainquirent  tant  de  fois,  et  les  subjugudrent,  cultivaient  les  arts,  avec  infiniment 
plus  de  soin  qu'eux."  ^ 

Here  is  an  excellent  argument : 

' '  Quand  on  dit  que  les  arts  rendent  les  homraes  eff^min^s,  on  ne  parle  pas  du 
moins  des  gens  qui  s'y  appliquent,  puisqu'ils  ne  sont  jamais  dans  I'oisivet^,  qui, 
de  tons  les  vices,  est  celui  qui  amollit  le  plus  le  courage.  II  n'est  done  question 
que  de  ceux  qui  en  jouissent.  Mais  corame,  dans  un  pays  polled,  ceux  qui  jouis- 
sent  des  commodites  d'un  art  sont  obliges  d'en  cultiver  un  autre,  ^  moins  de  se 
voir  r^duits  a  une  pauvret^  honteuse,  il  suit  que  I'oisivet^  et  la  mollesse  sont 
incompatibles  avec  les  arts."  ' 

Paris  is  one  of  the  most  pleasure-loving  cities  in  the  world  and 
one  of  the  most  industrious/ 

A  direct  statement  of  the  importance  of  the  arts  is  that  if  one 
banished  those  of  pleasure  and  fancy/  our  condition  would  be 
most  miserable.  They  are  truly  needs.  Without  them  the  State 
would  dwindle  and  the  people  perish.^  For  the  division  of  labor, 
the  circulation  of  wealth  and  the  progression  of  revenues  are 
closely  related  to  the  existence  and  interdependence  of  the  arts. 
They  require  little  capital  and  are  proportionately  productive. 
For  the  maintenance  of  a  State,  its  people  must  have  their  delices  ; 
and  superfluities  count  for  as  much  as  absolute  necessities.^ 

It  is  easily  seen  what  type  of  mind  would  evolve  these  consid- 
erations. None  has  expressed  it  better  than  Faguet  ^  in  declaring 
that  it  is  the  economist  alone  who  speaks.  Montesquieu  states 
absolutely  that  the  knowledge  of  arts  useful  in  a  way  to  mankind 
is  subordinate  to  the  "  grand  art  qui  forme  et  r^gle  les  societes.^ 
The  ancients,  his  constant  model,  cherished  the  sciences  and  pro- 
tected the  arts ;  but  the  things  of  government  were  their  cult.^ 
It  is  here  a  question  less  of  a  necessary  basis,  which  could  hardly 
be  disputed,  than  of  a  free  individual  preference. 

There  are  fragments  elsewhere  voicing  a  defence  similarily 
restricted.  Much  of  his  approval  has  been  for  the  arts  in  general, 
under  which  head  he  includes  most  of  the  products  of  civilization. 
It  is  true  that  he  classes  these  as  *  needs '  and  as  associated  with 


^1,336.  ^Ibid.  » I,  337-8. 

*XVIWsiMe,  pp.  141-2.— Seem/.,  p. 

1,102.  ^P.&F.,  I,  103. 


26  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

needs.^     It  is  true  that  he  grants  a  usefulness  even  for  belles-lettres 
— which  is  significant : 

"Les  livres  de  pur  esprit,  comme  ceux  de  po^sie  et  d' Eloquence,  ont  au  moins 
des  utilit^s  generales  ;  et  cea  sortes  d'avantages  sont  sou  vent  plus  grands  que  des 
avantages  particuliers."  ^ 

Without  such  usefulness  beaux  esprits  become  puerile.*  In 
Japan/  with  a  flux  of  articles,  there  will  be  more  material  for  the 
"  arts,"  more  men  at  work,  more  paths  to  power.^ 

This  is  well  and  excellent  commercially.  "  C'est  la  nature  du 
commerce  de  rendre  les  choses  superflues  utiles,  et  les  utiles 
n^essaires."  ^  In  Sparta,  the  State  was  left  resourceless  without 
these  arts  and  their  companions.^  "  L^on  voit  toujours  marcher 
d'un  pas  %al  les  arts,  les  connaissances  et  les  besoins." '  Such 
signs  of  progress  are  commended  for  the  times  of  the  great  Louis  ® 
and  the  great  Peter.®  In  Turkey,  "ces  barbares  ont  tellement 
abandonn6  les  arts,  qu'il  ont  n^glig^  jusqu'^  I'art  militaire."  ^" 
Finally,  "  la  diif^rence  qu'il  y  a  entre  les  grandes  nations  et  les 
peuples  sauvages,  c'est  que  celles-la  se  sont  applique^s  aux  arts  et 
aux  sciences,  et  que  ceux-ci  les  ont  absolument  n^glig^s."  " 

But  the  counter-evidence  is  heavy  and  to  the  point.  Such 
encouragement  as  a  believer  in  civilization  can  give  he  has 
bestowed ;  such  reserves  as  we  would  expect  from  an  exponent  of 
soundness  and  normality  in  the  body  politic  he  has  yet  to  take. 
Even  as  to  the  Spartans  he  observes  ^^  that  their  very  limitations 
in  productive  fields  led  to  a  period  of  grandeur  and  glory.  Empires 
generally  have  been  founded  in  ignorance  of  the  arts.^*  For  the 
Romans  he  is  of  course  all  admiration.  And  the  Romans  were 
notably  inartistic.^*     They  possessed  and  needed  only  one  art,  that 

In,  34,  134;  iv,  272. 

'  VII,  81.     This  is  in  a  Discours  Academique,  the  deliverances  of  which  do  not 
necessarily  import  sincerity  or  carry  conviction. 
3 1,  142. 

*  It  is  not  essential,  in  regard  to  the  countries,  to  call  his  facts  into  question. 
5 IV,  395.  «iii,  154.  'iv,  272. 

*  vit,  93 — his  reign  showed  ''  les  arts  proteges,  les  belles-lettres  cultiv^es." 
^i,  184 — "il  s' attache  a  faire  fleurir  les  arts." 

^°i,  99.  "  vn,  76.  "iii,  154.  ^^i,  332. 

"ii,  109.     They  particularly  scorned  the  theatre,  ii,  238. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  27 

of  war,  to  maintain  their  heroism  and  integrity  in  the  midst  of 
riches  and  corruption — "  ce  qui  n'est,  je  crois,  arriv6  h  aucune 
nation  du  monde."  ^  This  is  the  first  deduction,  for  us,  from  that 
blinding  passion  for  antiquity,^  whose  strange  prepossessions  will 
be  noted  in  abundance.  Again,  in  China  he  finds  such  a  plethora 
of  life  that  rigid  economy  is  essential.  "  II  faut  qu'on  s' attache 
aux  arts  n^cessaires,  et  qu'on  fuie  ceux  de  la  volupt^.''  ^  Under 
other  circumstances  he  has  identified  these  two  classes.  Now  he 
commends,  with  Tacitus,  the  admirable  simplicity  of  the  Germans, 
who  procured  their  ornaments  not  from  art  but  from  nature.* 

Finally,  one  may  form  an  estimate  as  to  his  valuation  of  the 
arts  from  a  passage  in  the  Lettres — a  passage  immediately  following 
his  statement  of  how  his  eyes  were  opened  aesthetically  in  Italy.^ 

In  passing  to  the  next  subject,  of  the  causes  and  relations  of 
art,  we  discover  still  more  to  impair  his  view  of  its  value.  For 
its  provenance  is  simple  and  direct :  "  L'effet  du  commerce  sont 
les  richesses ;  la  suite  des  richesses  le  luxe ;  celle  du  luxe,  la 
perfection  des  arts.''  ^  .  Also  the  two  together  are  among  the 
"  biens  sans  nombre  qui  r^sultent  de  la  vanite :  de  la  le  luxe, 
rindustrie,  les  arts,  les  modes,  la  politesse,  le  goM."  ^  He  asso- 
ciates thus  constantly  the  two  ideas ;  ^  and  hence  it  is  an  easy  step 
from  the  superabundance  of  luxury  to  the  perniciousness  of  the 
arts.  The  best  passage  in  the  Temple  de  Gnide  is  the  description 
of  Sybaris,^  whose  inhabitants  know  no  difference  between  pleas- 
ure and  necessity.  There  all  stimulating  and  disturbing  arts  are 
banished  ;  awards  are  given  to  the  discoverers  of  new  pleasures ; 
"  et  les  faveurs  des  dieux  sur  Sybaris  ne  servent  qu'a  encourager 
le  luxe  et  la  mollesse.''  Again,  the  Vandals  "  languissaient  dans 
la  volupte ;  une  table  delicate,  ...  la  musique,  la  danse,  les  jardins, 

In,  197,120. 

'For  the  oratorical,  conventional,  grand  antiquity.     Cf.  tn/.,  p.  163. 

3  III,  280. 

*iv,  288.     He  calls  constantly  for  simplicity,  alnaost  as  opposed  to  art  (e.  g.,  i, 
333).     But  is  it  not,  as  Faguet  divines,  a  simplicite  voulue?    See  inf.,  p.  166,  n.  9. 

*  VII,  227 — "A  mesure  que  les  go<its  dominants  commencent  k  s'affaiblir,  on  se 
d^dommage  par  un  grand  nombre  de  petits  gotits."    Among  which  small  tastes  the 
plastic  arts  are  apparently  to  be  included. 
(^«iv,  402.  'iv,  313.  8 IV,  397.  ^ii,  34. 


28  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

les  theatres  leur  ^taient  devenus  n^cessaires."  ^  Corruption  and  arts 
were  spared  the  ancient  Germans  ^  and  together  would  ruin  China.' 
Even  in  healthy  Greece,  the  "  artisans  "  were,  before  the  decline, 
denied  the  rights  of  citzenship.*  Singularly  enough  one  exception, 
and  that  not  the  most  obvious,  is  allowed  to  this  deteriorating 
influence :  music  is  held,  historically  and  actually,  to  soften  man- 
ners.* It  connects  spirit  and  body  and  excites  the  gentler  passions. 
"  On  ne  pent  pas  dire  que  la  musique  inspirit  la  vertu  ;  cela  serait 
inconcevable  :  ^  mais  elle  emp^chait  Peffet  de  la  f§rocit6  de  Tinsti- 
tution,  et  faisait  que  Fame  avait  dans  PMucation  une  part  qu'elle 
n'y  aurait  point  eue."^  Yet  while  it  mitigates  it  does  not  weaken  ; 
"  de  tons  les  plaisirs  des  sens  il  n'y  en  a  aucun  qui  corrompe  moins 
VkmeJ 

As  to  literature,  general  corruption  in  a  realm  will  affect  that 
branch  also.  And  the  great  ouvrages  d^esprit  can  hence  appear 
only  in  the  beginning  of  monarchies.^  This  dictum  is  but  a  sign 
of  that  slighting  tone  concerning  the  age  of  Louis  XIV,  which 
marks  our  author  and  indeed  his  period. 

Thus  it  is  seen  that  while  luxury  and  art  are  not  necessary  cor- 
relatives, they  are  frequent  associates.  It  is  still  the  idea  of  the 
beautiful  as  a  ressort  in  the  State  which  predominates. 

Other  connections  of  art  may  be  exhibited  here.  Lanson  has 
found  in  the  Essai  sur  les  causes  qui  peuvent  affecter  les  Esprits  a 
marked  tendency  toward  psycho-physics,  toward  the  introduction 
of  "  nerves "  into  the  literary  psychology,  which  would  make  of 
Montesquieu  another  precursor  of  that  modern  fad.^  His  partiality 
for  physical  science  already  indicated  ^^  would  help  to  account  for 
this.  Certainly  he  is  tempted  to  put  aesthetic  beauties  on  a  material 
basis,  as  when  in  regard  to  architecture  he  declares  its  orders  im- 
mutable, because  "  cela  est  pris  dans  la  nature,  et  il  me  serait  facile 
d'expliquer  la  raison  physique  de  ceci."  ^^     Art  is  relative  to  our 

In,  288.  2iy^288.  'ni,  280. 

*lii,  168.     But  he  notes  a  contradiction  of  Plato,  who  desired  to  banish  the 
poets,  while  admitting  their  moral  effect — P.  and  jP.,  ii,  20. 
^iii,  160,  162 — i.  e.,  still  among  the  Greeks. 
«  Why  ?  '  III,  163.  8P.  &  F. ,  ii. ,  28. 

»Cf.  inf.,  p.  87.  1"  Cf.  sup.,  p.  10.  "P.  &  R,  ii,  77. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  29 

present  state  and  to  the  conditions  of  our  physical  being ;  it  is  de- 
pendent on  the  ^  Machine.'  ^  Could  we  change,  it  would  change 
with  us : 

*'Si  nous  avions  ^t^  faits  autrement,  nous  aurions  senti  ^  autrement ;  un  organe 
de  plus  ou  de  moins  dans  notre  machine  nous  aurait  fait  une  autre  eloquence,  une 
autre  po^sie  .  .  .  .  " 

The  thought  is  developed  similarly  for  music  and  for  architec- 
ture.^    Hence  art  is  subjective  and  not  absolute. 

Its  relations  with  his  great  theory  of  climate  are  not  fully 
developed.  It  is  the  reproach  made  by  Scherer  ^  and  Saintsbury  ^ 
from  the  standpoints  respectively  of  history  and  criticism.  Still 
there  is  more  material  than  one  would  think  at  first  glance.  He 
gives  the  general  outline  and  leaves  us  to  read  in  the  special 
inferences. 

For  example,  imagination  seems  characteristic  of  warm  countries.^ 
The  Germans  lacked  it.'^  Together  with  taste,  vivacity  and  sensi- 
hilite  ;^  it  is  derivative  from  a  greater  capacity  for  sensation.  In 
warm  climates  the  susceptibility  to  amusements  is  greatest.^  Wit- 
ness the  differing  effects  of  music  on  the  English  and  on  the 
Italians.^*^  So  for  the  passions.  The  pleasures  of  society  are  best 
experienced  in  the  temperate  zones."     And  hence  we  derive  taste. 

"Leclimat  qui  fait  qu' une  nation  aime  £l  se  communiquer,  fait  aussi  qu'elle 
aime  a  changer  ;  et  ce  qui  fait  qu'une  nation  aime  a  changer,  fait  aussi  qu'elle  se 
forme  le  goiit."  '^ 

Again,  in  warm  countries,  there  is  the  love  of  goUts  raffing,  such 
as  casuistry. ^^  If  the  climate  is  too  torrid,  the  inhabitants  are 
addicted  to  indolence,  gentleness,  conservatism  and  speculation.^* 
If  it  is  very  cold,  we  find  endurance,  courage  and  liberty,^^  or 
activity  and  obstinacy  as  in  England. ^^    We  may  readily  draw  our 

^A  favorite  word  with  him. 

'The  Encydopedie  reading,  which  seems  preferable  to  '' verrions." 

'  VII,  117-118.  *Et.  sur  lalitt.  cont.  IX,  246. 

^Hist.  of  Cnt.,  II,  514.     Cf.  Brunetiere,  Ev.  de  la  CnL,  144-5. 

6 1,  425  ;  IV,  148,  151.  'iv,  170.  ^iv,  148. 

»v,  181.  10 IV,  149.  "IV,  226.  ^^^y^  312. 

13  P.  &  R,  II,  31.  i*iv,  172-3,  150,  153-4.  ^^ly^  145^  238-9. 

16 IV,  168. 


30 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 


^.^ 


own  conclusions :  the  arts  will  flourish  best  in  warm  though  not 
torrid  countries.  It  must  be  allowed  that  this  hypothesis  seems 
historically  justifiable,     [t.^  ,^  ^(?^v\aA^/) 

In  connection  with  nature  the  function  of  art  is  discovery  and 
presentation — but  also  selection  and  even  betterment.  For  land- 
scape-gardening : 

"  Part  vient  ^  notre  secours,  et  nous  d^couvre  la  nature  qui  se  cache  elle-m6me. 
Nous  aimons  I'art  et  nous  I'aimons  mieux  que  la  nature,  c'est-il-dire  la  nature  de- 
robee  ^  nos  yeux."  ^  At  Paphos,  "  I'art  n'y  parait  que  pour  faire  go<iter  avec  plus 
d' admiration  les  beauts  de  la  nature."  ^  Again,  ''  la  peinture  ne  prend  la  nature 
que  la  oil  elle  est  belle  "  ^  and  *4'on  corrige  par  I'art,'  et  les  defautsde  la  nature, 
et  les  ddfauts  de  I'art  m6me."  * 

With  reference  to  the  several  genreSy  he  reasserts,  in  a  single 
passage,  this  principle,  that  the  artistic  representation  of  objects 
may  give  more  pleasure  than  their  reality.*  There  is  thus  no  place 
in  art  for  exact  realistic  delineation.  Beauty,  rather  than  truth,  is 
the  goal.  This  corresponds  with  his  scientific  judgment  that  ob- 
servation is  a  poor  thing  by  the  side  of  constructive  reasoning ;  and 
(he  is  but  "  un  vil  artiste,  qui  a  vu  une  fois  et  n'a  peut-^tre  jamais 
pens6."« 

The  value  of  this  beauty,  which  art  and  nature  alike  seek,  is 
still  only  in  pleasure-giving  capacity.'^  Nature  has  more  of 
varrety  ®  and  less  of  striking  contrast.®  Hence  our  feet  must  not 
stray  too  far  from  her  paths.  We  hear  the  old  classic  cry, 
"  imitez  la  nature,"  ^^  by  which  saying  Raphael  is  praised,  and 
works  of  the  imagination  (particularly  histories")  criticised,^^ 
when  they  are  more  responsible  to  the  claims  of  truth.     Yet  what 


1 VII,  121.  *  VII,  460. 

'  Here,  it  is  true,  art  mechanical.  *  iv,  409. 

5 P.  &  F.,  I,  290 — ''Les  plaisirs  de  la  lecture,  lorsque  I'^me  s'identifie  dans  les 
objets,  avec  les  objets  (sic)  auxquels  elle  s'int^resse.  II  y  a  tel  amour  dont  la 
peinture  a  fait  plus  de  plaisir  a  ceux  qui  I'ont  lu  qu'a  ceux  qui  I'ont  ressenti.  II 
y  a  peu  de  jardins  si  agr^ables  qu'ils  aient  fait  plus  de  plaisir  k  ceux  qui  s'y 
promenent,  qu'on  (n'  )en  a  trouv^  dans  les  jardins  d' Alcide  ..." 

As  to  feminine  beauty,  the  passions  once  passed,  there  is  more  delight  to  be 
gained  from  a  fine  portrait  than  from  the  sight  of  the  original. — In  the  consecrated 
phrase,  we  may  give  this  for  what  it  is  worth. 


^6vn,  53;;, 
iSvnrlSe. 


Wii,  123. 
"  vn,  177. 


VII,  121,  126. 
2  VII,  174, 


»vii,  127. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  31 

persists  is  this  belief  in  selection.  In  gardens  again,  we  must 
combat  nature  as  bringing  confusion ;  ^  it  is  made  a  matter  of 
reproach  to  coarser  people  that  "  leur  ame  ne  sait  ni  composer  ni 
decomposer;  ils  ne  joignent  ni  n'dtent  rien  h  ce  que  la  nature 
donne."  ^     What  holds  for  love  will  hold  for  art. 

A  word  should  be  said  as  to  Montesquieu's  own  appreciation  of 
nature  as  equivalent  to  the  sensible  out-door  world.  His 
biography  and  his  works  ^  are  not  lacking  in  allusions  to  the 
pleasures  of  a  country  life.  His  avocation  as  a  natural  philoso- 
pher and  observer  is  known.^  His  pursuits  at  La  Brede/  the 
care  of  his  grounds  ^  and  vineyard/  the  pride  in  his  surroundings, 
would  seem  to  point  to  the  same  love  for  nature's  manifestations. 
He  enumerates,  among  simple  pleasures,  the  view  of  nature,  pro- 
ductive of  "douces  sensations."^  Vian^  tells  the  story  of  his 
intention  to  put  "  O  fortunatos  nimium,  etc.",  as  a  motto  above 
his  gate.  At  another  time  he  exclaims — "  0  rus  quando  te 
aspiciam  !  "  ^^  There  is  the  testimony  of  visitors  as  to  his  activity 
in  country  rambles.^^  But  as  Petit  de  Julleville  has  said,  this 
interest  had  rather  a  practical  basis — 

"  II  aimait  sinc^rement  la  vie  champ^tre,  et  il  la  mena  le  plus 
longtemps  qu'il  put ;  il  Faimait,  non  comme  un  poMe  ou  comme 
un  artiste ;  mais  en  bon  propri^taire  foncier,  en  vrai  seigneur  de 
village."  ^^  For  the  rest,  his  natural  descriptions  ^^  hardly  attest 
the   vivifying  impulse   which  makes   the   most,  artistically  and 

1 VII,  130.  2yn^l33, 

»  VII,  132-3  ;  Vian,  Histoire,  p.  300. 

*  Observations  sur  V  histoire  naturelle,  cf .  sup. ,  p.  10. 

^  **Tant  la  nature  s'y  trouve  dans  sa  robe  de  chambre  et  au  lever  de  son  lit 
(vii,  402).  On  which  Thomas  comments  (Vieilles  lunes  d'un  avocat,  p.  123) — 
'*  Pas  tant  dans  sa  robe  de  chambre  qu'il  vous  plait  de  le  dire,  monsieur  le  Presi- 
dent. Cette  nature-la  a  bien  plutot  I'air  d'un  paysage  de  Tel^maque," — and 
H^mon  notes  ( Cours  de  litt.,  i,  26),  that  here,  as  elsewhere,  a  natural  sentiment 
'*  reret  une  forme  cherch^e." 

*  VII,  271  ;  cf .  inf. ,  p.  79.  ^  See  Lettres,  passim. 

8 VII,  181.  ^Histoire,  p.  299.  i»vii,  429. 

^^  Vian,  p.  300  ;  see  also  Sayous,  XVIIP,  siMe  d  Vetranger^  i,  211. 
^^ Hist,  litt.',  VI,  177.     Hdraon  {loc.  cit.  )  agrees  with  this. 
"  T.  G.,  V.  d  P.,  etc.     Little  can  be  expected  along  this  line  before  the  advent 
of  Rousseau  and  the  English  poetic  influence. 


32  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

spiritually,  of  natural  phenomena.  With  these  provisions  and 
limitations,  his  views,  as  above  sketched,  of  the  artistic  conception 
of  nature  show  what  is  really  an  admirable  breadth  and  insight. 
Other  remarks,  associated  with  this  subject,  will  be  found  under 
the  treatment  of  landscape-gardening.^ 

Art  possesses  not  only  relations,  but  interrelations.  It  is 
always  interesting  and  fruitful  to  observe  not  only  how  any 
aesthetician  conceives  of  its  gradations,  but  how  he  values  the 
comparative  method  and  how  he  applies  it. 

The  arts,  as  industries,  in  the  widest  sense,  "  se  tiennent  presque 
tous."  ^  They  are  furthermore  dependent  upon  social  intercourse,^ 
a  solitaiy  individual  being  unable  to  practice  his  art.^  Their 
interdependence  promotes  the  circulation  of  riches  and  the  "  pro- 
gression de  revenus."  ^ 

In  the  technical  sense  also,  their  kinship  is  close : — 

"  Souvent  un  gofit  particulier  est  une  preuve  d'un  gott  general :  les  Muses  sont 
coeurs,  se  toiichent  I'une  et  1' autre,  et  vivent  en  compagnie."  * 

This  kinship  he  is  ready  to  acknowledge  and  illustrate,  in 
practice,  by  somewhat  frequent  comparisons.  But  theoretically 
he  contemns  them,  as  void  of  proof — ''  les  comparaisons  .  .  .  ne 
sont  bonnes  que  dans  Part  oratoire  et  la  po6sie  et  ne  servent  qu'^ 
dire  la  meme  chose  et  plus  mal.''  ^  It  is  true  that  this  does  not 
apply  specifically  to  the  critical  method,  but  the  extension  is  easy. 
Still  recommending  an  apartness,  the  thing  per  se,^  he  argues  well 
that  while  the  Muses  may  be  sisters,  they  will  ruin  themselves 
by  imitation.^ 

To  glance  at  his  application,  it  will  be  found  that  he  neverthe- 
less employs  the  method,  in  a  superficial  way  indeed,  for  the  con- 
trasting of  individuals. 

Within  the  same  genre,  he  compares  several  times,  for  instance, 


^  See  inf.,  p.  78. 

^  P.  &  F.,  II,  196 — "  une  aiguille  est  le  r^sultat  de  bien  des  arts. 
3  P.  &F.,  II,  196.  *  Still  as  meaning  industrie.  ^i,  337. 

^P.  &F.,  II,  34.  ''P.  &F.,  II,  304. 

^  See  on  Individualism,  inf. ,  p.  52. 

^  P.  &  F.,  II,  17 — "  Les  orateurs  se  sont  perdus  en  imitant  les  pontes,  comme  les 
sculpteurs  sesont  perdVis  en  copiant  les  peintres." 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  33 

Corneille  and  Racine ;  ^  deriving  as  his  best  conclusion  that  the 
respective  merit  of  their  plays,  so  far  as  that  would  imply  erecting 
a  scale  of  values,  is  not  to  be  decided.^  He  may  compare  for 
qualities,  as  where  he  contrasts  Rabelais'  naive  against  Voiture's 
fine  and  fatiguing  badinage ;  ^  or  where  he  allows  gaiety  to  some 
authors,*  plaisanterie  ^  to  others,  and  the  combination  only  to 
Moli^re  and  the  Lettres  Frovinciales.  Or  he  may  compare  the 
different  exponents  of  a  literary  style,  as  Balzac,  Voiture  and 
Fontenelle  for  letter- writing.^ 

In  different  genres,  there  is  hardly  more  than  a  cataloguing  of 

names,  where  authors  and  musicians  or  painters  and  authors  are 

paired  off,  for  qualities  which  may  have  impressed  the  writer,  but 

.  which  as  a  rule,  are  neither  mentioned  nor  ^  reasoned/     We  learn 

that  ^^  Rameau  est  Corneille  ;  et  Sulli,  Racine." ''     Why  ? 

In  the  striking  passage  on  an  author's  periods,^  he  says  that  a 
writer's  ^  art ' — subsequent  and  inferior  to  his  genius — corresponds 
to  a  painter's  'manner.'  The  perfect  drawing  of  Dominichino, 
Guido  Reni  or  Carraccio  reminds  him  of  the  perfect  versification 
f  of  Rousseau  {du  ruisseau).^  But  the  most  significant  example  in 
this  cataloguing  class  is  a  long  list  of  comparisons  between 
painters  and  authors — significant  less  for  what  it  includes  than 
for  what  it  leaves  out.^*^  This  list,  which  will  be  discussed  later 
under  Authors,  mentions  merely  names,  the  basis  for  the  com- 
parison being  sometimes  fairly  clear,  though  more  often  doubtful. 
Furthermore,  he  seems  to  have  hesitated  himself,^^  as  to  whether 
La  Fontaine  and  Marot  were  more  like  Correggio  or  Titian 
respectively ;  as  to  whether  Boileau  would  best  make  a  running 
mate  for  Dominichino  or  the  Carracci ;  and  he  was  hard  put  to  it 

'  Cf.  wf.,  p.  139. 

^  P.  &  F.,  I,  50 — "celle  qu'on  voit  repr&enter  est  toujours  la  meilleure." 
^P.  &F.,  II,  47. 

*Ibid. — To  Montaigne,  Kabelais,  Scarron,  and  to  the  Lettres  pasanes,  which  are 
also  riantes. 

^ Ibid.— To  Voiture  and  Fontenelle.  ^  P.  &  F.,  ii,  49. 

'  P.  &  F,  II,  69.  »P.  &  F.,  II,  17.     See  iv/.,  p.  81. 

'P.&F,  II,  72.  10 P.  &  F,  II,  49.     See  inf.,  p.  131. 

"P.  &F,  II,  Notes,  p.  539. 


34  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

with  regard  to  Chapelain  and  Diirer.  In  sum,  such  comparisons 
are  not  very  valuable  for  themselves.  We  need  to  guess  at  his 
temperamental  basis.  They  chiefly  serve  to  show  that  he  was 
not  a  master  of  the  method,  which  he  has  slighted. 

So  much  for  his  statement  of  the  nature  and  relations  of  Art 
in  general.     We  may  now  pass  to  its  distinctive  characteristics. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  35 


CHAPTER  YI. 
ART— ITS  QUALITIES  AND  PROPERTIES. 

Under  this  head  will  be  treated  a  collection  of  abstract  notions 
which  Montesquieu,  in  the  GoUit,^  considers  more  or  less  categor- 
ically as  springs  or  elements  of  artistic  valuation.  Some  of  them 
are  objective  and  hence  might  be  classed  under  taste  itself;  but 
it  seems  better  to  keep  his  grouping  intact.  Such  ideas  are; 
v^y^  beauty,  sentiment,  morality  ;  order,  symmetry,  simplicity,  variety  ; 
curiosity,  surprise,  the  odd,  contrasts,  difficulty ;  association, 
sublimity — and  the  Je  ne  sais  quoi. 

The  first  three  properties,  all  or  singular,  are  nowadays  con- 
sidered the  root  of  the  matter.  Montesquieu  gives  weight  to 
beauty,  which  from  the  standpoint  of  pleasure  would  be  the  more 
prominent,  but  as  to  the  others,  influenced  by  his  character  or 
predilections,  he  is  not  so  sure. 

In  the  first  place,  like  art  itself,  such  qualities  are  not  absolute.^ 
It  is  the  fault  of  the  ancient  philosophers — Socrates,  Plato,  and 
Aristotle — to  have  confused  the  positive  with  the  relative. — 

"Les  termes  de  beau,  de  bon,  de  noble,  de  grand,  de  parfait,  sont  des  attributs 
des  objets,  lesquels  sont  relatifs  aux  6tres  qui  les  consid^rent. "  ^ 

This  is  hardly  modified  by  his  subsequent  statement  that, 

"Quand  on  dit  qu'il  n'y  a  point  de  qualites  absolues,  cela  ne  veut  pas  dire  qu'il 
n'y  en  a  point  r^ellement,  mais  que  notre  esprit  ne  peut  pas  les  determiner."  * 

We  have  seen  that  beauty's  sole  end  is  pleasure,  and  that  it  is 
not  primarily  concerned  with  utility.^     But  Ste-Beuve  declares : 

^  Saintsbury,  Hist,  of  CriL,  p.  514 — "Montesquieu  is  entirely  occupied  in  trac- 
ing or  imagining  abstract  reasons  for  the  attractiveness  of  abstract  things." 

2  VII,  159-160,  cf.,  pp.  115-116  and  sup. ,  p.  10.  Also  Usbek,  (i ,  93),  thinks  with 
reference  to  pork-eating — "  II  me  semble  que  les  choses  ne  sont  en  elles-m^mes  ni 
pures,  ni  impures  " — but  only  relatively  to  our  natural  repugnance. 

'vn,  160.  *  VII,  162.  ^ Sup.,  ^.22. 


36  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

"  J*ai  parl^  tout  a  Fheure  de  Putile :  Montesquieu  y  joignait  une 
id^e  du  beau.  II  avait  un  divin  exemplaire  en  lui :  il  a  6lev6 
un  temple,  la  foule  y  est  couru.  Mais  n'y  a-t-il  pas  introduit 
quelques  idoles?"  ^  To  reconcile  this  is  difficult.  May  we  not 
suppose  provisionally  that  an  economist's  theory  of  the  beautiful 
would  lack  efficiency  and  permanency  when  placed  in  rivalry 
with  his  practical  bent  ?  Still  he  values  the  quality.  It  comes 
before  the  good  ^nd  the  grand  in  his  initial  enumeration,^  it  was 
the  first-born  of  the  gods ;  ^  in  monarchies,  it  is  closely  associated 
with  honneuvy  and  actions  rank  there  as  beautiful  rather  than 
as  good.*  We  are  informed  (in  his  verse)  that  a  negligent 
uncouscious  beauty  is  best  of  all."^  If  its  dominion  is  fragile,^  it 
has  yet  been  known  to  carry  it  over  mere  pleasure.''  These  last 
indications  are  slight,  but  for  all  that,  his  doctrine,  as  doctrine,  is 
definite.     It  becomes  the  man  of  taste  which  he  esteemed  himself. 

Beauty  in  itself  is  neither  the  great  nor  the  difficult, — things 
which  were  indifferently  styled  beautiful^  before  the  advent  of  the 
arts.®  He  adopts  as  excellent  Buffier's  definition  of  beauty  as 
*'  Passemblage  de  ce  qu'il  y  a  de  plus  commun.^'  For  the  fine 
tilings  are  those  of  which  there  is  the  greatest  number  alike — the 
hazards  of  variation  tending  to  difformity,  and  this  sort  of  scatter- 
ing vote  being  unable  to  compete  with  the  type  of  union  and 
regularity.  This  principle  may  explain  "toutes  les  beaut^s  de 
gofit,  m^me  dans  les  ouvrages  d' esprit.  Mais  il  faudra  penser 
l^-dessus.'^     There  is  little  room  for  individualism  in  this.^ 

As  to  feeling  the  small  part  which  it  played  in  Montesquieu's 
life  and  character  ^^  would  not  lead  us  to  seek  much  expression  or 
discussion  of  it  in  his  suggestions  on  taste. 

Indeed  all  that  we  learn  in  the  two  divisions "  devoted  to  this 


»  a  deL.,  VII,  61. 

^  vn,  115 — "  ces  diffdrents  plaisirs  de  notre  ^me  qui  forment  les  objets  du  goAt, 
comme  le  beau,  le  bon,  I'agreable,  etc." 

3 II,  391.  *  III,  143.  5  vji^  197^  203.  ^iv,  341. 

■^  VII,  161 — '' J'ai  entendu  la  premiere  representation  d'lnes  de  Castro,  de  M.  de 
La  Motte.  J'ai  bien  vu  qu'elle  n'a  r^ussi  qu'a  force  d'etre  belle,  et  qu'elle  a  plu 
aux  spectateurs  mal^r^  eux," 

^P.&F.,i,  313,  ^P&F.,n,  65-6,  cf.  in/.,  p.  53. 

^^  CI  sup.,  p.  9.  "VII,  130-132. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  37 

subject  is  that  the  passions  in  the  singing  of  virtuosi  are  "  trop 
suspectes  de  faussete,"  and  that  a  sensation  or  a  sentiment  (he 
seems  to  have  confounded  the  two)  is  manifold  and  full  of  access- 
ory ideas.  So,  from  force  of  association,  he  is  more  touched  by 
the  second  representation  of  a  play  than  by  the  first.^  We  are 
justified  in  feeling  pity  for  certain  situations,^  but,  on  physiological 
grounds,  there  is  fatigue  in  unvarying  sensations.^  It  is  difficult 
to  see  how  he  can  speak  of  the  historical  labors  of  Rollin  as 
"  le  coeur  qui  parle  au  coeur."  "^  The  true  passion  of  tragedy 
is  ter7'or,  and  it  is  hard  to  judge  of  Cr^billon  because  of  disturbing 
emotions.^  Still  the  passions  are  not  ridiculous  in  themselves,  and 
it  is  the  fault  of  comedy  to  use  them  for  laughter.^ 

Morality  plays  the  smallest  part  of  all.  So  far  as  the  moral  is 
the  public  good,  Montesquieu  would  recommend  goodness.  But 
otherwise  Jie  is  a  lenient  critic  of  men  and  manners,  with  consid- 
erable taste  for  things  not  particularly  virtuous.  We  do  not  see 
from  his  utterances  that  morality  and  art  have  any  connection. 
There  are  some  conventional  expressions  of  admiration,  as  when 
the  good  Rollin  comes  in  for  another  neat  phrase — "on  sent  une 
secrete  satisfaction  d'entendre  parler  la  vertu  :  c'est  I'abeille  de  la 
France."  ^  The  vertu  of  the  Romans  was  m^ich  more  to  his  taste. 
Marcus  Aurelius  is  worthy  of  all  praise.'^  But  '  good '  is  another 
relative  term,^  and  in  general  this  is  his  apology. — 

"C'est  en  vain  qu'une  morale  austere  veut  effacer  les  traits  que  le  plus  grand 
des  ouvriers  a  graves  dans  nos  S.mes  :  c'est  k  la  morale  qui  veut  travailler  sur  le 
coeur  de  I'homrae  h  regler  ces  sentiments,  et  non  pas  a  les  d^truire.  Nos  auteurs 
moraux  sont  presque  tous  outres  :  ils  parlent  a  1'  entendement,  et  non  pas  k  cette 
ame."  » 

One  is  tempted,  for  the  sentiment  part,  to  cry  de  tefabula. 

Among  those  qualities  which  remain,  Vian  ^"  is  probably  right 

in  thinking  that  variety  comes  nearest  being  the  cardinal  principle. 

It  is  at  any  rate  a  connecting  link  and  a  point  de  rephre  for  most 

of  them.     It  is  a  necessary  element  in  composition."     Without  it 

1 VII,  161— but  cf.  p.  147.  'vii,  139,  145.  "vii,  127. 

*  VII,  163.  5  VII,  161.  «  VII,  162.  'VII,  160. 

8vii,  115,  160.  »vii,  150.  iop.314. 

"  All  this  is  from  the  GoUt,  vii,  123-4. 


38  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

the  soul  languishes  :  for  like  things  appear  the  same  and  give  no 
pleasure.    In  art  as  in  nature,  aspects  and  sentiments^  must  vary. — 

"C'est  ainsi  que  les  histoires  nous  plaisent  par  la  vari^t^  des  r^cits,  les  romans 
par  la  varidt^  des  prodiges,  les  pieces  de  theatre  par  la  variety  des  passions." 

Uniformity  as  equivalent  to  political  conservatism,  he  has 
characterized  in  its  excess  as  a  mark  of  small  souls.^ 

Long  uniformity  is  unsupportable  in  a  style  of  similarly  con- 
structed periods,  in  a  poem  of  similar  numbers  and  climaxes,  in 
landscapes  of  similar  situations.  Yet  variety  must  not  impede 
vision.  This  is  the  fault  of  Gothic  architecture,  whereas,  by  its 
helpful  divisions,  the  Greek  seems  uniform.  A  host  of  differences 
in  minutiae  is  fatiguing  and  obscuring. 

Variety  is  the  best  of  nature  ^  and  for  books  the  same  holds  good. 
He  is  prompt  to  praise  "  cette  vari§te  qui  delasse  Fesprit "  * — 
he  finds  it  even  in  Academy  eulogiums ; ''  and  again  he  is  equally 
prompt  to  censure  the  constant  use  of  monotonous  unrelieved 
antitheses.^  For  his  own  part  he  will  endeavor  to  avoid,  as  in 
the  Temple  de  Gnide  ^  any  "  uniformity  vicieuse  " — though  he  has 
accused  himself  of  having  a  mind  like  a  mould.^  It  is  true  that 
beauty — of  women — is  due  to  regularity  of  features.^  But  regu- 
larity is  not  only  quite  limited ;  in  its  excess  it  is  disagreeable.^" 

That  we  must  nevertheless  have  order  and  symmetry  would 
seem  at  first  to  involve  some  contradiction.^^  He  explains  this  by 
providing  that  the  pleasure  which  we  derived  from  symmetry  is 
in  the  ease  with  which  it  allows  us  to  perceive  a  whole.  Hence 
a  general  rule  : 

"Partout  o^  la  sym^trie  est  utile  k  Vkme,  et  pent  aider  ses  fonctions,  elle  lui  est 
agr^able  ;  mais  partout  oil  elle  est  iniitile,  elle  est  fade,  parce  qu'elle  6te  la  vari^t^. 
Or  les  choses  que  nous  voyons  successivement  doivent  avoir  de  la  vari^t^  ;   car 


*=  sensation?  'y^  412-13,  cf.  inf.,  p.  52. 

3  VII,  121.  *vii,  81.  5  VII,  93. 

*  VII,  127. — I  need  only  mention  here  his  own  crass  sins  in  this  particular. 

'II,  9-10.  8  VII,  421— cf.  sup.,  pp.  15,  16. 

*P.  &  F.,  11,  66.     Whereas  the  grotesque  is  limitless. 

*®P.  &  F.,  ir,  78. — "II  n'y  a  rien  de  si  beau  que  le  ciel ;  mais  il  est  sem^ 
d'^toiles  sans  ordre.  Les  maisons  et  jardins  d'autour  de  Paris  n'ont  que  le  d^faut 
de  se  ressembler  trop  :  ce  sont  des  copies  continuelles  de  Le  Notre." 

"VII,  125-8. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  39 

notre  ame  n'a  aucune  difficult^  a  les  voir.     Celles  au  contraire  que  nous  aperce- 
vons  d'un  coup  d'oeil  doivent  avoir  de  la  symetrie." 

This  he  applies  particularly  to  architecture.  The  object  should 
be  simple  and  unique,  and  symmetry's  great  attraction  is  to  make 
a  tout  ensemble}  Nature  leaves  no  imperfect  part ;  a  pond^ration 
or  balancing  is  accordingly  needed  in  art. 

Order  links  to  past  and  future  and  thereby  our  soul  is  pleased.^ 
It  is  troubled  by  confusion,  when  our  imagined  suite  disagrees 
with  the  artist's.  "  L'ame  ne  retient  rien,  ne  pr^voit  rien,  elle  est 
humiliee  par  la  confusion  de  ses  idees,  par  Finanite  qui  lui  reste ; 
elle  est  vainement  fatigu^e,  et  ne  pent  gotiter  aucun  plaisir.'' 
There  should  be  order  in  confusion  itself,  as  in  battlepieces.^ 
Order  is  the  rule  of  the  universe,  though  it  be  not  the  harmony  of 
Heraclitus.^  It  is  the  basis  of  science,  not  to  be  dispensed  with 
in  art.''  It  is  required  in  art's  forms,  as  in  gardens ;  ^  in  literature, 
it  is  the  first  thing  learned  in  the  study ;  ^  as  proportion  it  appears 
in  things  like  the  adjustment  of  parts  in  St.  Peter's,''  and  even  in 
the  girdle  appropriate  to  Yenus.^  Such  symmetry  must  not  be 
pushed  into  the  mechanical.  Painters  and  sculptors  violate  their 
standards  of  bodily  proportions,  because  of  varying  attitudes.^ 
Michelangelo  played  with  his  principles.  Architecture  is  not 
exact.  But,  as  a  rule,  great  wholes  must  have  great  parts.  ^" 
This  is  in  nature. 

The  idea  of  contrasts  ^^  is  associated  with  that  of  variety  on  the 
one  hand  and  with  that  of  symmetry  on  the  other.  In  painting 
and  in  sculpture,  especially  in  the  latter  because  it  is  colder,  there 
must  be  symmetry  in  the  parts  but  contrast  in  the  attitudes. ^^ 
We  are  not  oriental  idols.  Contrast  itself  may  degenerate  into 
the  "  vicious  uniformity,"  as  has  been  seen  for  antitheses  ;  and 
painters  "  sans  menagement "  allow  one  to  guess  exact  corres- 
pondances  in  their  figures.  The  diverse  again  becomes  the 
similar.    Moreover ; 


1 VII,  125-8.  2yjji22.  ^yn,lS.  ''Cf.  m/,  p.  60. 

5  VII,  130.  ^R  &F.,u,  10.       ^  VII,  137.  ^vii,  136. 

9  vn,  142-3.  loyii,  124.  iWii,  126-7. 

^^  Also  P.  &  F.,  II,  70 — If  symmetry  in  attitudes  is  ''insupportable"  so  is  the 
contrast  "trop  contraste,"  which  in  the  last  analysis  is  also  symmetry. 


40  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

"  La  nature  ne  montre  pas  I'ailectation  d'un  contraste  continuel ;  sans  compter 
qu'elle  ne  met  pas  tous  les  corps  en  mouvement,  et  dans  un  mouvement  forc<5. 
Elle  est  plus  vari^e  que  cela  ;  elle  met  les  uns  en  repos,  et  elle  donne  aux  autres 
diff ^rentes  sortes  de  mouvement." 

Contrasts  have  their  ludicrous  side,  as  in  comedy,  where  there 
is  dissonance  between  a  character  and  a  situation.^  Our  laughter 
frequently  redoubles,  because  of  the  contrast  between  our  dignity 
and  the  comic  impulse.^  "  Tous  les  contrastes  nous  frappent, 
parce  que  les  choses  en  opposition  se  reinvent  tous  les  deux."  ^ 
This,  however,  is  not  of  universal  application,  for  : 

"  Deux  beaut^s  communes  se  d^font ;  deux  grandes  beautfe  se  font  valoir."  * 

These  are  the  true  beauties  of  opposition,  where  the  inevitable 
Florus  ^  comes  in  to  support  a  distinction  between  antitheses  in 
ideas  and  mere  antitheses  of  expression,  favorable  to  the  former/ 
But  "les  contrastes  sont  cause  des  d^fauts  aussi  bien  que  des 
beaut^s.  Lorsque  nous  voyons  quMls  sont  sans  raison,  quMls 
relevent  ou  eclairent  un  autre  d^faut,  ils  sont  les  grands  instru- 
ments de  la  laideur,"  and  may  thus  not  only  provoke  laughter, 
but  also  pity  and  even  aversion.^  An  opposition  which  is  con- 
trary to  good  sense,  or  which  is  too  rechei-ch^^  no  longer  pleases 
and  is  hence  a  distinct  defect.  In  large  relations,  as  in  particulars, 
the  principle  obtains.  He  thinks  that  all  the  agr^ment  of  his  own 
Lettres  persanes  consisted  "dans  le  contraste  ^ternel  entre  les 
choses  r^elles  et  la  mani^re  singuli^re,  naive  ou  bizarre,  dont  elles 
etaient  aper9ues."  ^ — We  shall  see  that  the  connection  between 
contrast  and  surprise  is  intimate.® 

Curiosity,  it  has  been  seen,  is  a  noteworthy  trait  of  Mon- 
tesquieu's character  and  mind.^^  He  lauds  it  as  a  sign  of  the 
times.^^  A  thinking,  perceiving  soul  should  have  it.^^  For,  in  the 
chain  of  things,  "  on  ne  pent  aimer  a  voir  une  chose  sans  dfeirer 

» VII,  145.  » VII,  139.  'vn,  138. 

*  VII,  172 — Applied  especially  to  physical  beauty. 
5  Cf.  in/.,  p.  136.  6  Qi  inf.,  p.  159. 

'VII,  140.  8 1,  49.  8 Cf.  in/.,  p.  41.  i»Cf.  *up.,  p.  10. 

**  ".  .  .  une  certaine  curiosite  que  tous  les  hommes  ont,  et  qui  n'a  jamais  4t4 
si  raisonnable  que  dans  ce  siecle-ci  ..."     lience  comes  knowledge. — vii,  78. 


The  Aesthetic  Dodrme  of  Montesquieu.  41 

d'en  voir  une  autre."  Accordingly,  the  more  things  we  see,  the 
better  pleased  we  are,  and  a  wide  range  over  nature  gives  us 
greatest  enjoyment.  In  the  intellectual  sphere,  we  have  the 
famous  aphorism.^ 

"  Ce  qui  fait  ordinairement  une  grande  pensee,  c'est  lorsqu'on  dit  une  chose 
qui  en  fait  voir  un  grand  nombre  d'autres."  ^ 

In  gaming,  or  at  the  theatre,  the  suspension  of  interest  is  what 
gives  pleasure.^  Finally,  for  literature  in  particular,  curiosity  is 
the  "  principe  du  plaisir."^ 

From  curiosity  derives  the  search  after  novelty,^  which  in  turn, 
together  with  the  unexpected  and  the  marvelous,  produces  sur- 
prise.^ He  dwells  much  upon  this  ressort.  Its  action  is  spec- 
tacular and  prompt.  Not  only  does  it  obtain  for  plays  and 
games,  but  even  "les  ouvrages  d' esprit  ne  sont  ordinairement 
lus  que  parce  quails  nous  m^nagent  des  surprises  agreables."  ^ 
Accessory  ideas  enter  in  here,^  and  startling  climaxes  provoke 
his  admiration. 

The  movement  is  towards  this  climax  in  the  progression  of 
surprise.®  The  bizarre  seen  all  at  once  will  amaze,^*^  but  the  eifect 
does  not  increase.  Surprise  is  the  essence  of  epigrams  ;  ^^  it  is  part 
of  variety,  and  an  effect  of  contrasts.^^  An  illustration  is  given 
from  natural  scenery.  In  surprise  and  contrast  alike  the  emotion 
arises  partly  from  the  difference  between  the  actual  and  what 
ought  to  be.^^ 

Another  relative  of  curiosity  is  what  briefly  we  may  call 
mjstery  and  what  Montesquieu  calls  the  je  ne  sais  quoi^^ — 
described  as  '^  un  charme  invisible,  une  grace  naturelle,  qu'on 
n'a  pu  d^finir."  This  likewise  springs  from  surprise,  if  we  had 
expected  to  discover  less.     He  applies  it  particularly  to  women, 

*  Assuredly  characteristic  of  the  man  and  his  method.  '  vii,  121. 

''vii,  146-7,  also  vii,  171— "I'attente  est  une  chaine  qui  lie  tons  nos  plaisirs." 
*P,  &F.,  II,  122.  ^xu,  120.  «vii,  128. 

'VII,  129.  ^Ctinf.,  pp.  43,  81. 

»vii,  136-7.  loyii^  136^  cf,  i^y^^  p^  53^ 

"P.  &  F.,  II,  284 — "une  belle  r^ponse  parce  qu'elle  est  contradictoire  k  celle 
que  I'on  attend." 

»2  VII,  138.  "vii,  119,  139,  145. 


42  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

with  little  artistic  reference.^  "Nous  n'aimons  presque  que  ce 
que  nous  ne  connaissons  pas ; "  ^  and  what  is  hidden  usually 
excites  us  most.^  In  all  the  arts  and  particularly  in  poetry,  there 
are  "  certaines  f^licit^s  que  Ton  ne  rattrape  point."  *  In  litera- 
ture, there  is  again  the  glamour  of  language.  A  certain  work  may 
please  more  in  Latin  than  in  French  : — 

"C'est  que  le  franpais  reprdsente  aux  Franfais  les  choses  comme  elles  sont : 
il  lui  donne  une  id^e  juste,  qui  est  si  claire  qu'il  n'en  peut  pas  ajouter  des 
accessoires.  Dans  le  latin,  que  nous  n'entendons  pas  parfaitement,  1' imagination 
ajoute  a  la  veritable  id^e  une  id^  accessoire  qui  est  tou jours  plus  agr^able."  ^ 

So  he  urges  for  style  the  principle  of  suggestiveness,  of  leaving 
something  to  the  reader.^  Perhaps  we  may  associate  with  it  that 
other  idea  of  ars  celare  arteni,  which  he  applauds  :  ^ — 

"  Mais  ^  si  vous  ne  voulez  point  adoueir  la  rigueur  de  mes  travaux,  cachez  le 
travail  m^me  ;  faites  qu'on  soit  instruit,  et  que  je  n'enseigne  pas ;  que  je  r^- 
fl^chisse  et  que  je  paraisse  sentir ;  et  lorsque  j'annoncerai  des  choses  nouvelles, 
faites  qu'on  croie  que  je  ne  savais  rien,  et  que  vous  m'avez  tout  dit." 

Other  more  independent  qualities  are  sublimity,  ndiveti,  and 
association.  Of  these  three  the  greatest  is  simplicity ;  "  car  la 
majeste  demande  une  certaine  gravity,  c'cst-tVdire  une  g^ne  oppos6e 
a  ring6nuit6  des  graces."  ^  And  though  we  admire  the  majesty 
of  Paolo  Veronese,  we  are  touched  by  the  simplicity  of  Raphael.^*' 
Corneille  is  pompous  where  Racine  is  natural."  Yet,  for  the 
"gens  qui  sont  bien  6lev6s,"  sublimity  and  nobility  persist  as 
ideas ;  a  thing  seems  noble  when  accessories  enhance  it ;  so  in 
comparison  one  should  proceed  from  the  less  to  the  greater. ^^ 
Unfortunately,  among  us  moderns,  the  feeling  for  the  sublime  is 
largely  ruined  by  the  philosophy  of  reason,  which  has  diminished 
the  taste  for  poetry  by  reducing  all  to  general  ideas  and  pure 
understanding.^^  Among  the  people,  the  has  is  the  sublime,^"*  and 
this  passage  would  give  us  the  whole  situation : 

^vn,  133-5.  'VII,  117.  »vii,  120.  ^P.  &F.,u,VJ. 

^P.&R,  II,  67.  ^Cf.  inf.,  p.  130.  ^  vii,  85,  161. 

^**  Invocation  aux  Muses,"  iv,  360.  ^vii,  130,  cf.  mp.  p.  36. 

i»vn,  134.  "vn,  140. 

^^  VII,  141 — Michelangelo  is  the  great  exponent  of  nobility  and  Giulio  Romano 
is  also  instanced. 
"P.  <fei^.,  I,  222.  i*vn,  140. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  43 

"Le  style  enfl^  et  emphatique  est  si  bien  le  plus  ais^  que,  si  vous  voyez  une 
nation  sortir  de  la  barbaric,  vous  verrez  que  son  style  donnera  d'abord  dans  le 
sublime,  et  ensuite  descendra  au  naif.  La  difficulte  du  naif  est  que  le  bas  le 
cdtoie ;  *  mais  il  y  a  une  difference  immense  du  sublime  au  naif,  et  du  sublime  au 
galimatias." ' 

Because  the  naive  is  between  the  low  and  the  noble,  it  is  the 
most  difficult  of  styles,  though  one  of  the  most  pleasing,^  and  the 
most  replete  with  grace/  Education,  which  produces  gtne,  and 
affectation  spoil  this  grace,  this  naturalness  in  our  manners  and  in 
our  esprit}  "Ainsi  les  graces  ne  s'acquierent  point:  pour  en 
avoir,  il  faut  ^tre  naif.  Mais  comment  peut-on  travailler  k  ^tre 
naif?  '^  *  It  is  what  we  shall  have  to  ask  ourselves  when  it  comes 
to  a  question  of  his  own  style.^ 

He  is  quite  fond  of  the  notion  of  accessory  or  associated  ideas. 
There  is  a  bit  of  impressionism  in  this.^ — "Nous  sommes  tons 
pleins  d'id^es  accessoires."  ^  The  more  we  have,  the  more  delicate 
is  our  taste.^  So  each  sentiment  is  composed  of  many  others ;  ^ 
and  the  surprise  may  be  in  the  association.^^  Thereby  we  gain 
more  pleasure."  Such  are  the  accessory  ideas  ^^  of  the  persons 
joined  to  the  performance,  of  the  difficulty  of  the  work,  of  our 
previous  recollections,^^  etc.  As  to  the  artists  themselves,  we  are 
displeased  with  the  idea  of  virtuosi,^^  however  well  they  sing ;  an 
actress  will  please  us  off  the  stage,  because  we  still  think  of  her 
as  the  princess  or  what  not.^^  He  finds  impressiveness-  or  at  leas^ 
cause  for  admiration  in  a  tour  de  force. — A  thing  is  hard  to  do, 
therefore  excellent.  ^^  Expense  may  even  be  a  consideration.^^ — 
We  can  eliminate  other  inconsiderable  details,  and  pass  to  a  dis- 
cussion of  goM  itself  as  interpreted  in  this  Essai, 


1  Kepeated  VII,  140.  »vii,  176-7.  'vii,  140.  *  vn,  141. 

^"Pour  s' Clever  au  rang  des  plus  grands,  il  lui  a  manqu^  seulement  un  peu 
plus  de  naturel  et  de  simplicity."     Petit  de  Julleville,  vi,  201.      Cf.  inf.,  p.  186. 

«Cf.  inf.,  p.  53.  7  VII,  132,  cf.  mp.,  p.  41. 

« VII,  133.  9  VII,  129,  131.  i»  VII,  129.  "Cf.  s«p.,  p.  22. 

^2  VII,  129,  131.  "VII,  131-2,  vs.  147.  "vii,  131.  i»vii,  132. 

i«vii,  130-1,  140.  Yet  elsewhere  (P.  &  F.,  i,  313)  it  was  people  without  taste 
who  so  judged. 

*'  VII,  130 — He  was  rather  parsimonious. 


44  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 


CHAPTER  yil. 

ART— CRITERION— TASTE. 

Such  qualities  as  have  been  dealt  with  are  the  objects  of 
Taste.^  Taste  is  defined  as  nothing  else  than  "Pavantage  de 
d^couvrir  avec  finessee  et  avec  promptitude  la  mesure  du  plaisir 
que  chaque  chose  doit  donner  aux  hommes."  It  is  in  rendering 
reasoning  for  our  sentiments  that  our  taste  is  formed.^  There  are 
two  varieties  corresponding  to  the  two  varieties  of  pleasure,  the 
natural  and  the  acquired  :  ^ 

"Le  goAt  naturel  n' est  pas  une  connaissance  de  th^orie,  c' est  une  application 
prompte  et  exquise  ties  regies  meme  que  I'on  ne  connait  pas."  * 

Neither  precepts,  nor  analysis  of  our  pleasures,  nor  any  philos- 
ophy can  form  this  innate  taste.  A  taste  formed  is  a  taste 
acquired.^  Yet  it  is  tnie  that  the  two  kinds  mutually  affect  and 
alter  each  other. 

Taste  is  a  species  under  the  genus  esprit.^  Its  specific  mark  is 
delicacy.^  It  is  also  a  matter  of  feeling  rather  than  of  thought — 
though  Montesquieu  would  connect  the  two^ — and  we  have  thence, 
from  another  point  of  view,  its  most  general  definition  as  "  ce  qui 
nous  attache  a  une  chose  par  le  sentiment."  ^ 

As  a  product  of  this  sentiment,  of  this  delicacy,  it  is  the  peculiar 
property  of  a  certain  class  of  people.  There  is  little  difficulty  in 
divining  what  class  of  people  is  meant.  Among  the  nations,  he 
commends  the  development  of  taste  with  the  Greeks ;  ^  with  the 
English  he  has  remarked  "plus  d'esprit  que  de  goiit,"  ^  even  their 

1 VII,  115. 

'^vii,  116,  cf.  inf.,  p.  50,  also  vii,  131 — "Souvent  notre  dme  se  compose  elle- 
m^me  des  raisons  de  plaisir." 

3  VII,  117.  "vii,  118.  ^vii,  119.  «  VII,  120,  133. 

'  This  is  significant,  as  illustrating  once  more  the  struggle  between  heart  and 
head.     Cf.  sup.,  pp.  9,  36. 

8 IV,  414.  9 IV,  354. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  45 

poets  showing  rather  crude  creation  than  delicate  subtleties.^  It 
is  France,  he  proudly  declares,  France  which  rivals  the  ancients 
in  this  source  of  wealth,^  this  mark  of  excellence.^  And  at  home, 
what  caste  will  appropriate  its  blessings?  The  people,  "cette 
sorte  de  gens  que  Ton  a  abandonn^s  dans  tons  les  ages,''  ^  contrast 
unfavorably  here  with  the  cultured  classes.^  He  gives  his  ideal 
in  the  chapter  on  education^  in  monarchies : 

"  On  trouve  a  la  cour'^  une  d^licatesse  de  gout  en  toutes  choses,  qui  vient  d'un 
usage  continuel  des  superfluites  d'une  grande  fortune,  de  la  varidt^,  et  surtout  de 
la  lassitude  des  plaisirs,  de  la  multiplicity,  de  la  confusion  m^me  des  fantaisies, 
qui,  lorsqu'elles  sont  agr^ables,  y  sont  tou jours  re9ues. — C'est  sur  toutes  ces  choses 
que  1' Education  se  porte  pour  faire  ce  qu'on  appelle  I'honnete  homme,  qui  a 
toutes  les  qualit^.s  et  toutes  les  vertus  que  I'on  demande  dans  ce  gouvemement."  ® 

Taste  is,  again,  a  "  plaisir  delicat  des  gens  du  monde ; "  ^  and, 
"  ceux  qui  jugent  avec  go  tit  des  ouv  rages  d'esprit  ont  et  se  font 
une  infinite  de  sensations  que  les  autres  hommes  n'ont  pas."  ^^ 
He  insists  upon  the  multiplicity  and  the  increasing  diminutive- 
ness  ^^  of  these  sensations,  and  remarks,  after  Italy  has  made  him 
"open  his  eyes  on  the  arts,''  that  small  tastes  supplant  large 
ones,^^  and  "il  ne  faut  pas  examiner  si  on  y  perd  ou  si  on  y 
gagne."  '^ 

The  monopolizing  of  taste  may  be  carried  even  further ;  the 
Temple  de  Gnide  ^'*  is  for  "  tetes  bien  fris^es  et  bien  poudr^es ; "  ^^* 
women,  connected  with  all  agrements,^^  form  taste  above  all.^^ 
How  could  he  fail  to  recognize  this  reigning  influence  of  his  time  ?  ^^ 

1 IV,  356.  2  ]^ote  the  economist.  »iv,  308.  ♦iii,  144. 

*vii,  140 — Not,  indeed,  directly  so  stated — he  says  oply  "le  bas  est  le  sublime 
du  peuple." 

^ScH.,  "du  monde." 

'He  did  not,  however,  exemplify  or  commend  the  courtier's  life  as  such. 

8  III,  144-45.  »  VII,  120.  10  VII,  133. 

"iv,  148  ;  VII,  131,  etc. — Connected  with  accessory  ideas.  There  is  some  Maro- 
tism  in  this.     Cf.  vii,  85. 

1' Cf.  sup.,  p.  27,  n.  5.         ^^  y^j^  227.         " Dedicated  to  a  princess  of  the  blood. 

'^n,  11.  16 IV,  210. 

"After  remarking  that  taste  springs  from  national  inconstancy  (quoted  sup.,  p. 
— )  he  states  further  that  "La  society  des  femmes  gate  les  raoeurs  et  forme  le 
goiit."  (iv,  312)  Sorel  objects  that  the  contrary  was  true  in  M's  case.  Cf.  inf.y 
pp.— 

18  Shown  in  all  his  lighter  works.     Cf.  ii,  382. 


46  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine'  of  Montesquieu, 

All  this  seems  quite  clear  and  quite  positive  doctrine.  It  is 
coherent  and  logical.  It  is  what  we  would  expect  from  the  mon- 
archist of  the  Esprit  des  Lois,  from  the  fine  theorist  of  the  GoMy 
from  the  chevalier  des  dames  of  the  Temple  de  Gnide — whence  the 
quotations  are  largely  derived.  But  it  is  sufficiently  evident  by 
now  that  Montesquieu  had  still  another  side  to  his  character.  It 
is  from  the  flotsam  and  jetsam  of  the  Pensees  et  Fragments — 
where  I  think  may  often  be  found  much  of  his  rarer  and  more 
intimate  thought — that  a  quite  different  conception  emerges. 

Here,  he  is  more  far-sighted  in  penetration  and  takes  many 
more  reserves.  In  the  first  place,  the  things  of  taste  are  very 
obscure.^  Recurring  to  his  favorite  principle  of  relativity,^  he 
speaks  boldly  for  tolerance,  declaring  that  no  taste  is  always 
infallible,^  that  it  varies  from  China  to  France,  according  to  the 
principle  of  P.  Buffier,  and  that  this  same  principle  of  common 
regularity,*  "  est  excellent  peut-^tre  pour  expliquer  toutes  les 
beaut^s  de  goAt.''  ^ 

Generally,  for  aesthetics,  it  may  be  granted  that  now  we  are 
better  informed,  "depuis  qu'on  a  connu  si  bien  les  sources  de 
Pagr^able  et  du  beau,"  ^  than  when,  the  arts  being  unknown  : 

"  Les  hommes  sans  goiit  appelaient  heau  tout  ce  qui  dtait  grand,  tout  ce  qui  dtait 
difficile,*  tout  ce  qui  avait  ^t^  fait  par  un  grand  nombre  de  bras."  "^ 

When  it  comes  to  discriminating  between  the  persons  who 
ultimately  know,  his  standpoint  appears  to  have  changed  radically. 
Taste  may  still  be  the  property  of  Paris.^  But  the  gens  de  goUt 
are  not  only  to  be  carefully  distinguished  from  the  gens  riches ;  ^ 
they  may  not  wholly,  we  infer,  be  identified  with  the  honnUes  gens. 
-For  Montesquieu  finally  admits  a  possible  democratization  of  taste, 
in  allowing  that  the  people  is  honnUe  dans  ses  g&dtSy^^  that  in  the 
long  run  it  is  the  tast€  or  judgment  of  the  public  which  decides." 

^R  &F.,  II,  66.      « Cf.  sup.,  pp.  28-9.      ^  P.  &  F.,  ii,  27.      * Cf.  sup.,  p.  36. 

^  P.  &^F.,  II,  51. — It*is  true  that  his  belief  varies  as  to  how  well  we  know  them. 

«  Cf.  mp. ,  p.  43.  y         '  P.  <fe  F. ,  I,  313. 

^P.  &  F.,  II,  180. — "A  Paris,  on  passe  sa  vie  avec  des  goAts.  Dans  les  pays 
Strangers,  il  faut  des  passions,  disait  M.  Lomillini." 

9P.  &F.,  II,  78.  1°  VII,  174. 

^^P.  &  F.,  II,  26. — '  *  Ses  jugements  scell^s  par  le  temps  sont  presque  tou jours 
bons." 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  47 


Again  : 


**A  la  fin,  le  public  rend  justice.  En  voici  la  raison  :  le  suffrage  des  gens  sages 
est  constant ;  mais  ceux  {sic)  des  fous  sont  divers,  et  varient  sans  cesse,  et  se 
d^truisent  les  uns  les  autres."  ^ 

Whatever  there  may  be  of  apparent  contradiction  in  these 
diverse  statements  can  perhaps  be  eliminated  by  freshly  consider- 
ing his  own  definition  and  division  of  taste.  We  have  seen  that 
on  the  one  hand  it  is  a  matter  of  sentiment  and  delicacy,  on  the 
other  a  matter  of  judgment  and  criticism  ;  that  it  may  be  innate 
or  acquired.^  May  we  not  infer  then  that,  of  his  two  opposed 
classes  of  persons,  the  raffines,  the  gens  du  monde  appropriate  the 
blessings  of  the  first  kind,  while  the  larger  public  comes  with  the 
less  immediate  and  surer  judgment  of  the  second?  It  seems  a 
question  of  sensitized  perception  in  the  first  case  ^  — the  perception 
that  was  lacking  in  the  geometer  of  the  Lettres  persanes,^  who  was 
ridiculed  as  seeing  only  a  building  of  certain  dimensions,  where 
other  men  viewed  a  superb  castle.  The  people  of  innate  taste 
perceive  immediately,  in  the  present,  with  vividness  of  impression, 
based  consciously  on  no  rules.  The  people  of  acquired  taste 
judge  leisurely,  for  the  future,  with  fulness  of  reasoned  know- 
ledge. This  nearly  approaches  our  latter-day  differentiation 
between  impressionistic  and  scientific  criticism.  We  would  not 
be  warranted  in  assuming  which  kind  Montesquieu  in  the  end 
prefers. 

As  for  his  own  taste,  he  trusts  that  it  is  excellent.^  This 
opinion  may  be  reserved  for  later  consideration.®  In  th6  mean- 
time, it  is  fair  to  say  that  he  values  the  quality  with  an  honest 
emphasis.  It  is  with  reference  solely  to  this  standard  that  he 
frequently  praises  or  condemns  works  of  art,  as  of  "  bon  gotit " 
or  "mauvais  gout."^  And  the  excellence  of  critics  would  seem  to 
depend  primarily  upon  the  predominance  of  this  faculty.^ 


^P.  &  F.,  II,  28,  cf.  again  the  P.  Buffier's  theory,  which  quite  probably  sug- 
gested this  line  of  reasoning. 

»Cf.  sup.,  pp.  44-5.  '  See  the  above  excellent  definition,  p.  44. 

*  I,  397.  5  In  connection  with  his  penchant  for  the  ancients. 

*See  inf.,  under  criticism  of  Doctrine,  p.  201. 
'' Voyages,  i,  191,  238,  etc.  »  yu^  264. 


48  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 


CHAPTER  VIII. 
SCHOOLS— CLASSICISM  VS.  INDIVIDUALISM. 

Since  the  divisions  of  this  treatise  must  largely  follow  the 
material  ^  and  since  the  above  subject  stands  well  forward,  both 
for  its  intrinsic  importance,  and  for  its  predominance  in  our 
author's  mind,  it  has  seemed  worth  while  to  devote  a  chapter  to 
his  discussion. 

The  strife  implied  between  the  standards  corresponds  somewhat 
with  that  just  mentioned,  between  a  personal  temperamental  taste 
and  the  judgments  of  a  cultivated  mind.  It  corrresponds  still 
more  closely  with  the  subsequent  opposition  of  ancients  and 
moderns  under  Literature.^ 

Classicism  finds  its  most  usual  antithesis,  indeed,  in  Romanti- 
cism. But  of  that,  in  Montesquieu's  time,  there  could  certainly 
be  little  premonition.  As  to  the  self-assertiveness  of  the  individual, 
however,  one  might  well  ask,  is  it  assuming  too  much  to  accredit 
our  author  with  some  appreciation  of  such  principles — principles 
of  independence  and  inventiveness,  of  personality  and  even  of 
iconoclasm  ?  Could  it  be  expected  that  the  foremost  apostle  of 
liberty,^  the  political  partner  of  Rousseau,  the  father  of  the  Giron- 
dists, would  show  entire  conformity,  entire  accord  with  a  decrepit 
order,  in  things  artistic  ?  It  is  true  that  light  came  latest  just  in 
this  field  for  the  time  and  its  interpreters ;  still  there  might  well 
be  some  glimmerings  of  emancipation,  even  in  a  philosophe — for 
the  philosophe  himself  had  taken  a  forward  step  in  emancipation 
of  another  sort. 

Liberty,  in  sum,  would  be  an  extensive  and  encyclopedic  prin- 
ciple. Among  other  things,  it  should  embrace  art.  But  just  here 
there  are  two  considerations  that  give  us  pause.  The  first  is 
Montesquieu's   occasionally  bewildering   gift   of  moderation,   his 

iCf.  sup.,  p.  13.  •-'Cf.  inf.,  p.  124.  »Cf.  m/->  P-  204. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  49 

hedging,  his  disposition  to  show  both  sides  of  the  medal.  The 
second  is  the  fact,  that  in  all  his  lauding  of  liberty,  it  is  never  the 
individual  liberty,^  the  individual  right  that  he  recommends. 
Like  the  ancient  legislators,  says  Janet,  Montesquieu  "  ignore 
entierement  le  droit  de  Pindividu."  ^  And  Beudant  believes  that 
"  individualiste  par  toutes  les  tendances,  il  garde  le  pr6jug6  de 
TEtat  providence."  ^ 

There  are  still  these  other  tendencies. — The  best  way,  as  usual, 
will  be  to  discard  these  a  priori  insinuations  and  to  seek  for  what 
he  has  said. 

The  term  "  classicism,"  in  its  ambiguity,  may  be  used  in  several 
ways.  There  is  the  simple  love  of  the  classics ;  and  the  conse- 
quent formulation  of  rules  and  principles  drawn  therefrom  by  a 
neo-classical  school  of  France  or  of  England.  There  is  the 
further  disposition  to  define  the  literary  products  of  these  princi- 
ples as  themselves  "classics."  Whence  derive  fresh  principles 
and  fresh  products,  ad  infinitum  until  inanition  and  putrescence  set 
in — which  point  was  attained  in  the  eighteenth  century. 

The  first  two  original  kinds  of  classicism  are  those  which  will 
find  most  frequent  illustration  in  Montesquieu's  doctrine;  as  a 
matter  first  of  concrete  choice,  and  then,  inductively,  of  abstract 
dogma. 

For  the  first  kind,  his  sincere  preference  for  the  ancients  admits 
of  little  doubt.^ 

He  will  choose  a  "  finished  and  finite  "  past,  rather  than  elect  a 
new,  an  unborn  excellence.  Classicism,  where  it  is  genuinely 
classic,  needs  no  further  excuse.  The  TSlemaque  is  divine,  because 
in  it  Homer  seems  to  breathe  again.'*  The  Greek  bard  has  given 
us  the  two  only  kinds  of  epic  which  we  yet  have.^    He  holds  that : 

"Sophocle,  Euripide,  Eschyle,  ont  d'abord  portd  le  genre  d' invention  au  point 
que  nous  n'avons  rien  change  depuis  aux  regies  qu'ils  nous  ont  laissdes,  ce  qu'ils 
n'ont  pu  faire  sans  une  connaissance  parfaite  de  la  nature  et  des  passions."  * 

Many  other  of  our  genres  come  from  the  ancients.^    He  declares 

iCf.  inf.,  p.  122.  2  Ed.  E.  L.,  p.  318. 

^Beudant,  Droit  Individuel,  etc.,  p.  126. 

*  VII,  158.  5  Yoyages,  n,  374.      ' 


50  The.  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

— and  it  is  a  significant  utterance  on  the  classic  side — that,  "  Les 
Anglais  sont  des  g^nies  singuliers ;  ils  n'imiteront  pas  m^me  les 
anciens  qu'ils  admirent."  ^  But  as  to  uninspired  imitations  he  is 
not  so  sure.^ 

The  classicism  on  principle  occupies  much  of  Montesquieu's 
thoughts.  Duparcq  ^  thinks  he  finds  in  the  Gout  a  broad  recogni- 
tion of  convention  as  "plaisir  acquis.^'  By  this  it  would  be  a 
virtue  in  art  to  resemble  itself.*  The  several  watch-words  of  the 
classical  contest  find  fresh  expressions. 

As  to  Order,  what  has  already  been  said  of  this  versus  variety  * 
may  pass  for  here. — The  great  point  of  agreement  between  his 
intelligence  and  Boileau's  rules,  is  the  divine  right  of  reason.  It 
is  possible,  he  declares,  to  "  faire  un  art  de  la  raison  meme,''  ^  and 
no  phrase  comes  nearer  expressing  his  artistic  ideal.  Reason's 
empire  is  natural,  even  tyrannical ;  resistance  is  vain,  and  to  her 
laws  we  must  always  return.''  By  the  will  of  the  Muses,  "  je  parle 
k  la  raison ;  elle  est  le  plus  parfait,  le  plus  noble  et  le  plus  exquis 
de  nos  sens."®  Pleasure  itself,  we  have  seen,  can  be  reasoned^ 
and  should  be  reasonable. ^'^  Where  it  is  possible  to  please  in  other 
respects,"  we  should  still  cling  to  reason  as  much  as  may  be. 
Otherwise  that  which  primarily  sins  against  hon  sens  can  no  longer 
please. ^^  But  reason,  or  rather  its  forced  application,  has  never- 
theless its  limits :  ^^ 

"Les  principesde  la  g^ora^trie  sont  tres-vrais  ;  mais  si  on  les  appliquait  ^  des 
choses  de  goClt,  on  ferait  d^raisonner  la  raison  ra^me."  " 


^  VII,  169.  2yij^  160_1  .  478.  ^  Notes,  p.  65. 

*The  formulation  of  this  principle  is,  however,  not  definite.  It  would  seem 
allied  with  Spencer's  "economy of  attention"  and,  more  nearly  with  M's  "pleas- 
ure of  recognition."     (vii,  121). 

5Cf.  swp.,  pp.  38-9.  6x11,221.  ■'v,  356. 

8  IV,    360.  9  y^j^    131.  10  yii^    143.  11  yjj^    143.4. 

12  VII,  140,  143.  Bons  sens  is  made  the  standard  again  and  again.  For  its  lack 
he  condemns  the  extravagancies  of  nouvellistes,  (i,  404),  of  grammarians  and  their 
kin  (I,  419),  and  of  poets  (i,  425). 

''  VI,  202-3.     It  is  true  that  he  is  inveighing  here  against  the  narrowness  of  his 
theological  critics — but  the  whole  passage  is  worth  consulting.     Cf.  inf.,  pp.  53, 
,  122. 
s/      ^*  Cf.  d  propoSf  our  former  geometer  (i,  397. ) 


The  AeMhetic  Doctrine  of  3fontesquieu,  51 

After  this,  oue  is  somewhat  surprised  to  hear  him  declare  that 
architecture  is  everywhere  and  always  the  same,  that  to  condemn 
French  architecture  is  to  condemn  Italian  and  is  as  illogical  as 
condemning  Italian  geometry,  that  the  pleasure  we  take  in 
buildings  is  largely  mathematical/  Exact  proportions  can  be 
disregarded  only  by  a  Michelangelo,  whose  excellent  taste  knew 
what  '  ought  ^  to  be  done  to  satisfy  the  eye.^  But  for  him,  "  il 
semblait  qu'il  etit  un  art  a  part  pour  chaque  ouvrage."  ^ 

For  others,  in  varying  genres,  Montesquieu  leans  towards  a 
belief  in  the  rigidity  of  standards.  The  Medici  Venus  is  the 
model  of  beauty  and  shows  the  way  a  woman  ^ ought'  to  be 
represented :  ^ 

"EUe  sert  de  regie,  et  ce  qui  est  semblable  dans  les  proportions  a  cette  statue 
est  bien,  et  ce  qui  s'en  ^carte  est  mal."  ^ 

In  the  drama,  the  above-mentioned  Greek  tragedians  ®  having 
attained  the  highest  possible — not  "  perfection  "  but  "  la  totale 
invention,''  have  left  us  rules,  which,  in  Aristotle's  formulation, 
"  subsistent  toujours."  '^  ^^  Nous  ne  pouvons  nous  en  departir."  ^ 
That,  I  think,  is  as  heartily  classic  as  we  could  desire.  Comedy, 
however,  is  equally  hide-bound,  since — unlike  life — it  must 
necessarily  have  five  acts.^ 

There  is  a  whole  division  on  "  rules "  in  the  Gout,  where  he 
takes  some  reserves  :  ^^ 

**  Tous  les  ouvrages  de  I'art  ont  des  regies  g^n^rales,  qui  sont  des  guides  q'il  ne 
faut  jamais  perdre  de  vue. — Mais  comme  les  lois  sont  toujours  justes  dans  leur 
^tre  general,  mais  presque  toujours  injustes  dans  1' application  ;  de  meme  les  regies, 
toujours  vraies  dans  la  theorie,  peuvent  devenir  fausses  dans  I'hypotlilse." 

So  with  regard  to  physical  proportions  in  painting.  Art  gives 
rules  and  taste  the  exceptions ;  taste  shows  us  where  art  '  ought ' 
to  submit  and  where  it  ought  to  reign.  But  whether  or  not  a 
thing  ^  ought'  ^^  to  please  or  ^ ought'  ^^  to  surprise,  is  a  dominance 

^R  &F.,  II,  76.  2  Yoyages,  ii,  346.  '  vii,  143. 

*  Voyages,  ii,  329.  &  Voyages,  ii,  330.  ^Ci.  sup.,  p.  49. 

■^  Voyages,  u,  351. — Repeated,  with  some  modification,  ibid.,  p.  374. 

^  The  stronger  phraseology  is  from  ii,  374. 

^P.  &F.,  li,  92.     Cf.  inf.,  p.  114.  i"  vii,  142-3.  ' 

"vn,  116.  i2yii^  119. 


52  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

of  taste,  rather  than  of  formulated  rules.  And  the  rules  of  taste 
it  has  been  seen,  may  not  always  be  patent.^ 

He  flatters  himself,  in  the  preface  to  the  Temple  de  Gnide  that 
he  has,  in  that  work,  observed  the  ^  rules ;  ^  ^  but  if  not,  he  is 
careless  of  criticism  in  this  respect. 

"  Quelques  savants  n'y  out  point  reconnu  ce  qa'ils  appellent  I'art.  II  n'est 
point,  disent-ils,  selon  les  regies.  Mais  si  I'ouvrage  a  plu,  vous  verrez  que  le 
coeur  ne  leur  a  pas  dit  toutes  les  regies."  ' 

But  one  fears  that  the  '  heart,'  as  a  source  of  rules,  is  here  a  pure 
affectation.  In  regard  to  the  Esprit  des  Lois  he  has  shown  a  still 
prouder  individuality.^ 

As  for  this  '  nature,'  whence  spring  rules,  we  have  in  frequent 
recurrence — especially  in  praise  of  Raphael — the  ancient  slogan, 
"  imitez  la  nature."  ^  Yet  it  has  been  observed  ^  that  art  must  put 
order  in  her  confusion  and  selection  in  her  wholesale  abundance. 

We  find  thus  notions  quite  opposed  to  formalism.  The  idea 
of  an  "  art  apart  for  each  work "  ^  seems  almost  a  precursor  of 
late  standards  of  judgment.^  In  the  criticism  of  the  Academy 
against  the  Oid — 

"  C'est  dans  ce  cas  oil  la  morale  exigeait  qu'avant  de  penser  a 
ce  qu'elle  devait  au  public,  elle  pensat  a  ce  qu'elle  devait  k  Cor- 
neille,  et  peut-§tre  .  .  .  au  grand  Corneille.''  ^  Authority  itself 
has  its  limits.  It  reigns  only  in  the  domain  of  fact,  and  not  in 
the  realms  of  reasoning.^^     "  Ipse  dixit  est  toujours  une  sottise.''  ^^ 

In  the  curious  chapter  on  uniformity,  where,  as  Riaux^^  says, 
Montesquieu  combate  "  la  manie  de  tout  niveler,''  we  learn  that 
the  known  perfection  which  strikes  small  souls  may  yield  to  the 
greatness  of  a  genius  which  realizes  "  dans  quel  cas  il  faut  Tuni- 
formite  et  dans  quel  cas  il  faut  des  differences.''  ^^ 

^  VII,  118 — ''des  regies  que  I'on  ne  connait  pas."  May  I  compare  "Le  coeur 
a  ses  raisons  ?  " 

^  " .  .  .  les  regies,  que  les  auteurs  des  po^tiques  ont  prises  dans  la  nature,  s'y 
tro,uvent  observ^es."     ii,  9. 

3n,  10,  11. 

*  VII.  386 — "  Mon  intention  a  ^t^  de  faire  mon  ouvrage  et  non  pas  le  sien." 

5  vii,  136  ;  Voyages,  i,  229,  231,  240.  «  See  sup.,  p.  30. 

■^  See  sup. ,  p.  29.  ^  Associated  with  his  ideas  of  relativity. 

»P.  &  R,  II,  50.  10 P.  &F.,n,  22.  "  P.  &  R,  ii,  490. 

^^ Notice,  p.  16,  cf.  sup.,  p.  38.  "v,  412. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  53 

For  his  own  judgments,  he  is  the  captain  of  his  artistic  soul ; 
and  individuality  becomes  impressionism — 

"  II  y  a  des  coeurs  qui  sont  faits  pour  certains  genres  de  dramatique  ;  le  mien 
en  particulier  est  fait  pour  celui  de  Cr^billon  .  .  .  je  ne  pretends  pas  donner  men 
opinion  pour  les  autres.  Quand  un  sultan  est  dans  son  serail,  va-t-il  choisir  la 
plus  belle?    Non,  il  regarde,  et  il  dit ;  Je  I'aime  ;  il  la  prend  .  .  ."  ^ 

Talent  is  god-given  and  unconscious  ;  ^  genius,  be  it  a  "  rudesse 
originale  d^ invention/'  ^  is  above  the  dominion  of  rules,  and 
should  be  freed  from  the  carping  of  critics. — 

* '  On  vient  nous  mettre  un  beguin  sur  la  tete,  pour  nous  dire  a  chaque  mot : 
'  Prenez  garde  de  tomber ;  vous  voulez  parler  comme  vous,  je  veux  que  vous 
parliez  comme  moi.'  Va-t-on  prendre  I'essor?  ils  vous  arretent  par  la  manche. 
A-t-on  de  la  force  et  de  la  vie  ?  on  vous  I'dte  a  coups  d'epingle.  Vous  dlevez — 
vous  un  peu  ?  voila  des  gens  qui  prennent  leur  pied,  ou  leur  toise,  levent  la  tete, 
et  vous  orient  de  descendre  pour  vous  mesurer.  ...  II  n'y  a  science  ni  litt^rature 
qui  puisse  r^sister  a  ce  pedantisme."  * 

Such  eloc^uent  and  virile  words  become  his  independence  of 
thought,  and  the  century's  advancing  freedom  of  expression. 

Yet  excessive  individualism  may  become  pure  selfishness,  as 
in  the  socially  disastrous  argument  of  the  Troglodytes.^  The 
epigram  that  "nous  ne  jugeons  jamais  des  choses  que  par  un 
retour  secret  que  nous  faisons  sur  nous-m^mes,'' ^  tends,  in  its 
introduction  of  a  relativity  too  nearly  infinite,  neither  to  the 
credit  of  humanity,  nor  to  the  promotion  of  beauty.  This  latter 
truth  is  vividly  realized  in  his  illustrations  of  negroes  who  paint 
their  gods  black  and.  their  devil  a  dazzling  white ;  of  "  certain 
peoples''  who  attribute  to  their  Venu^  a  repulsive  malformation; 
and  indeed  of  the  whole  body  of  worshippers  who  ascribe  to  their 
deities  the  human  face  and  inclinations. 

Originality,  too,  may  become  singularity,  and  the  bizarre, 
the  grotesque.^  It  is,  however,  usually  the  unthinking  crowd, 
"artisans  grossiers  des  ide^s  des  autres,"  who  call  a  thinking 
man  of  character  "  un  homme  singulier."  It  may  happen  that 
"  la  singjilarite  consiste  dans  une  maniere  fine  de  penser  (?),  qui 

3 IV,  456.  -^  VI,  202-3. 

He  thinks  this  good  enough  to  repeat,  i,  273. 


1 VII,  314. 

^  VII, 

170. 

5 1,  77. 

'h 

206. 

He 

T.  &F., 

n, 

129. 

54  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

a  ^chapp6  aux  autres."     And  a  singular  man's  thoughts  are  so 
peculiarly  his,  that  another  lies  in  using  them.^ 

Finally  he  speaks  strongly  for  originality  in  writing.  If  diction- 
aries of  living  languages  are  limited  things,^  grammar  is  likewise 
too  restrictive  of  diction  :  ^ 

**  Un  homme  d' esprit  est,  dans  ses  ouvrages,  crdateur  de  dictions,  de  tours  et  de 
conceptions  .  ,  .  .  un  homme  qui  (^crit  bien  n'^rit  pas  comme  on  a  ^crit,  mais 
comme  11  ^crit,  et  e'est  souvent  en  parlant  mal  qu'il  parle  bien." 

Allowing  for  the  antithetical  paradox  and  for  Ste-Beuve's* 
characterization  of  the  last  lines  as  "  des  idees  fort  d^gag^es/'  the 
fact  remains  that  Montesquieu's  line  of  thought  here  is  strongly 
and  convincingly  individualistic. 


ip.  &F.,u,  129. 

»P.  <fc  P.,  II,  7-8.  *  C.  de  L.,  vii,  55. 


BOOK  III. 
ESTHETIC    DOOTEINE-FOEMS   OF   AET, 


CHAPTER  IX. 
MONTESQUIEU  AND  THE  FINE  ARTS-GENERAL  VIEW. 

"  Depuis  que  je  suis  en  Italie,  j'ai  ouvert  les  yeux  sur  les  arts 
dont  je  n^avais  absolument  aucune  idee."  ^  Such  is  his  own  state- 
ment of  the  revelation  which  Italy  effected  for  him.  The  extent 
of  this  revelation  and  the  degree  of  artistic  acumen  which  he 
developed,  largely  in  this  journey  of  1728-9,  is  what  it  is  proposed 
to  investigate  throughout  this  Book. 

The  arts  with  which  he  became  more  or  less  familiar  were,  in 
the  order  of  their  importance  for  him,  painting,  architecture,  sculp- 
ture, with  something  of  music.  Poetry  cannot  be  included  in  the 
list.^  The  others  formed  certainly  his  chief  preoccupation  while 
in  Italy  ^  and  even  to  some  extent  before  ;  for  we  find  already  at 
Vienna  ^  that  the  "  immobile  "  ^  M.  Jacob,  to  whom  he  owes  his 
idea  of  painting,^  has  begun  to  act  as  his  initiator  and  guide  to  the 
galleries.    This  was  his  first  cicerone,  of  whom  there  were  several.^ 

"  Le  progres  qu'il  fait  en  quelques  mois  est  surprenant."  ^  If 
at  Venice  his  eyes  are  still  bandaged,  from  Padua  to  Florence,  it 
is  a  "  perp6tuel  enchantement."  ^  Once  at  Florence  he  visited  the 
Uffizi  every  morning  for  a  month  or  more,^^  and  as  a  natural  result 

Wii,  227. 

^Cf.  inf.,  p.  106.     It  is,  in  any  case,  best  treated  under  Literatu^re. 
'  See  Picot,  Voyages  de  Mont. ,  esp.  p.  44. 
*P.  &F.,  II,  542  ;  Voy.,  i,  xxi. 

^Vii,  224— though  of  amatory  tendencies.  ^  F.  &  F.,  ii,  542. 

'  Voyages,  xxvii,  xxix,  343 — Bouchardon  among  others. 
8  Picot,  p.  44. 

*Fournier  de  Flaix,  Voyages  de  Mont.,  pp.  8-9.  ^"^  vii,  226. 

55 


56  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

believed  greatly  in  the  Florentine  school,  whose  geniuses  "ont 
contribu^  plus  qu'aucune  ville  d'ltalie  au  renouvelleraent  des 
arts."  ^  Even  the  Gothic  ^  here  is  better  than  anywhere  else. 
The  published  notes  on  Florence,  which  yet  are  not  inconsiderable, 
form  but  a  small  part  of  what  he  actually  wrote.^  And  his  minute 
study,  particularly  of  the  statuary,  is  well  evidenced.  This 
admiration  is  in  accordance  with  the  Vasari  tradition.* 

In  Rome,  where  he  spent  five  months,  the  arts  continued  their 
march,  with  equal  pace,  until  architecture  began,  towards  the  end, 
somewhat  to  predominate.*     He  finds  Rome,  frankly, 

"la  plus  belle  ville  du  monde.  Si  les  arts  dtaient  perdus,  on  les  retrouverait 
dans  Rome."  * 

The  "  stones,"  however,  hardly  tempt  the  future  author  of  the 
Romains ;  ^  it  is  rather  the  Rome  of  the  Renaissance  which  wins 
his  suffrages.® 

Those  who  are  seeking  fine  works  of  art  should  never  leave 
Rome  for  Naples,  where  it  is  easier  to  ruin  one's  taste  than  to 
form  it.^  He  spent  little  over  a  week  here,  declaring  that  it  took 
two  minutes  to  see  Naples,  as  against  six  mouths  for  the  Imperial 
City.^« 

It  may  well  be  asked,  as  early  as  this,  how  much  dependence 
can  be  placed  on  his  susceptibility,  his  judgment,  his  very  indi- 
viduality in  these  matters,  since  he  admits  that  he  has  frequently 
transcribed  the  opinion  of  M.  Jacob  and  others."  We  may 
reasonably  expect  quite  a  quantity  of  trite  and  unfelt  criticism, 
of  conventional  admirations,  or  of  unsafe  boutades. 

There  will  be  sometimes  a  succession  of  "  beau,"  "  tr^s  beau," 
"tr^s  bon  gout,"  showing  weariness  rather  than  appreciation. 
Much  of  it,  indeed,  will  not  be  criticism  at  all,  but  a  sort  of  close 
description  of  churches,  statues,  paintings,  or  an  enumeration  of 
the  facts  and  figures  which  his  curiosity  demanded  and  recorded. ^^ 

^Voyages,  i,  169.  ^Seem/->  P-  71.  ^Voyages,  i,  xxvii. 

*Voy.,  1,  339.  5  Voy.,  i,  xxx.  ^Voy.,  ii,  p.  7. 

'See  Bonnefon,  Voyages  de  Mont.,  p.  129. 

^Fournier  de  Flaix,  p.  11.  ^Voy.,  ii,  6.  ^^Voy.,  i,  xxix. 

^^P.  &  F.,  II,  69. — But  just  after  this  even,  come  a  series  of  *'  observations  que 
j'ai  faites  depuis." 

"^.  g.,  on  the  Tower  of  Pisa,  Voy.,  i.  157. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  57 

M.  Doumic/  as  well  as  another,  has  stated  and  even  overstated 
the  limitations  with  which  we  must  reckon.  Montesquieu,  deter- 
mined not  to  neglect  Italy^s  resources,  applies  himself  "  avec 
conscience."  As  an  attentive  scholar,  he  follows  his  master,  and 
"  on  le  voit  changer  d^ opinion  en  m^me  temps  que  de  cicerone.'' 
He  approves  of  Raphael  in  conventional  style,  but  reserves  the 
fulness  of  eulogy  for  the  Bolognese,  as  the  then  cult  required. 
Pre-Renaissance  and  Gothic  meant  nothing  to  him,  wherein  he 
was  no  worse  than  his  time.  He  abdicates  his  preferences  in 
favor  of  the  "classement  officiel."  He  has  tried  his  best  to 
'*  prendre  gotat,"  for  art,  and  thinks  that  he  takes  pleasure  in  it. 
In  short : 

"La  v^rit^  est  qu'il  n'y  a  rien  de  plus  mdthodique,  mais  aussi  rien  de  plus 
froid  que  la  facon  dont  il  passe  en  revue  les  chefs-d'oeuvre  classes.  Nul  accent 
personnel.  Pas  un  mot  qui  trahisse  1' emotion  directement  ressentie  .  .  .  Mon- 
tesquieu n'est  ni  touriste  ni  artiste."  ^ 

Much  of  this  is  quite  true.  It  is  only  too  sweeping.  I  am 
hardly  convinced  that  he  had  no  fixed  opinions,  that  his  great 
admiration  for  Raphael  was  conventional,  that  he  took  no  real 
pleasure  in  this  field.  Individual  observations  and  the  personal 
note  recur  frequently,  if  not  invariably,  with  some  warmth 
of  enthusiasm  and  with  the  peculiar  type  of  judgment  belonging 
to  him.  That  will  be  attested  in  what  follows.  Few  can  fail  to 
find  in  his  remarks  on  the  Gothic  or  on  Michelangelo,  in  his 
distrust  of  vaghezza  and  his  relish  for  chiaroscuro^^  the  decided 
hall-marks  of  the  Montesquieu  that  we  are  coming  to  know.  His 
temper  is  still  that  of  the  curious  investigator  and  of  the  polished 
man  of  breeding.^  Picot  makes  a  good  distinction  in  declaring 
that  it  is  not  always  a  question — 

"  des  phrases  admiratives  telles  qu'en  peut  (^crire  un  voyageur  auquel  se  r^vMe 
un  art  qu'il  ne  soupfonne  pas,  mais  d'une  ^tude  approfondie  ;  il  sent  les  beautds, 
et  il  veut  savoir  a  quoi  est  due  cette  sensation."  * 

The  attempt  will  be  made  then  to  convey  succinctly  whatever 
seems  at  once  individual  and  critical  in  these  remarks  on  the  arts, 

1  Vrnjages  de  Mont,  pp.  929-30.  ^Ihid.,  p.  230. 

^See  in  order,  inf.,  pp.  71,  64,  61. 

*I  hesitate,  as  yet,  to  say  of  "taste."  ^  Voyages  de  Mont,  p.  44. 


58  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

omitting  perforce  descriptions,  minutiae,  banal  phrases  and  evident 
echoes — omitting,  too,  what  would  seriously  clog  our  progress, 
the  detail  of  technique  and  processes,  the  reviewing  of  individual 
names  and  works.  The  few  exceptions  to  this  last,  will,  it  is 
hoped,  prove  strikingly  illustrative.  But  there  shall  be  included, 
in  general,  whatsoever  things  are  just,  beautiful  or  charming  from 
the  standpoint  of  the  President. 

In  continuance  of  his  views  on  the  locale  of  the  arts,  he  holds 
that,  historically,  all  the  arts  founded  on  drawings  are  "  Graeco 
solo  ortaej^  ^  The  Greek  religion  sped  their  arts,^  together  with 
the  fact  that  they  constantly  saw  men  naked.  They  had  corporeal 
gods  and  athletes  to  represent,  while  other  nations  lacked  such 
models. 

These  side-lights  on  religion  are  quite  curious.  He  allows  in 
general  its  artistic  tendencies,^  but  in  detail  he  admits  them  only 
for  the  Greek  mythology  and  mediaeval  Catholicism. 

**Le8  Grecs,  qui  n'dtaient  point  g^n^s  par  la  religion,  porterent  I'art  infini- 
ment  plus  loin,*  et  les  Eomains  ne  se  trouverent  pas  a  une  bien  grande  distance 
des  Grecs,  et  les  arts,  par  la  religion,  furent  retards  en  Egypte." 

Devotion,  or  Religion,  encourages  these  arts.  Catholicism,  with 
its  cult  of  images,  helped  in  their  renewal.  Had  Protestantism 
prevailed,  we  would  have  lost  much. 

To  return  to  the  Greeks,  they  were  the  fathers  of  sculpture, 
which  it  is  almost  certain  they  could  have  taken  neither  from 
the  Egyptians  nor  the  Persians — and  he  gives  the  arguments.'^ 
It  may  possibly  have  been  known  in  Etruria.®  But  he  abides 
finally  by  the  Greeks,  and  derives  thence  all  moderns : 

»  Vmi.,  II,  349. 

2  This  connection,  implying  the  ancillary  relation  of  art,  which  we  think  of 
rather  as  aboriginal  or  Renaissance  or  nineteenth  century,  Montesquieu  yet  makes 
for  himself  en  plein  dix-huitieme — ''  Je  sens  que  je  suis  plus  attache  a  ma  religion 
depuis  que  j'ai  vu  Rome  et  les  chefs-d'oeuvre  de  I'art  qui  sont  dans  les  ^glises." 
{Voy.,  I,  xxxiv.)  Whence,  remarks  Doumic  (loc.  cit.),  one  might  "avec 
beaucoup  de  bonne  volont^,"  draw  all  of  the  Genie  du  Christianwne. 

'  What  follows  is  from  the  end  of  the  treatise,  JDe  la  maniZre  gothique,  Voy. ,  ii, 
320-3  (cf.  inf.,  p.  71.) 

*i.  e.,  than  the  Egyptians.  ^  Voy.,  ii,  348-50. 

•Elsewhere,    again  with  apparent  inconsistency,    he  says  that   Assyrius  has 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  59 

*'  On  peut  consid^rer  avec  quelle  rapidite  les  Grecs  allerent  de  I'art  a  la  perfec- 
tion de  I'art.^  ...  II  n'y  a  pas  un  long  trajet  de  la  fondation  des  empires  grecs 
jusques  aux  plus  excellents  peintres.  .  .  .  Nous  avons  inutilement  travaille  depuis 
I'inondation  des  Barbares  jusques  ^  Giotto.  Quelques  pretres  grecs  donnerent  ^ 
Cimabu^  et  a  Giotto  quelques  faibles  rayons  de  Tart.  lis  en  resterent  la  jusques  k 
ce  que  la  vue  des  antiques^  ouvrit  1' esprit  de  Michel- Ange  et  de  ses  contem- 
porains.  Les  Grecs  eux  seuls  ont  fait  ce  que  nous  n' avons  pu  faire  que  par 
eux."  ' 

After  the  Greeks,  the  arts  rose  and  fell  with  the  Eoman 
Empire — rose  from  Augustus  to  Hadrian  and  Trajan,  to  fall 
from  that  point.*  Among  the  moderns,  he  has  little  to  remark 
concerning  the  Germans — whether  for  Rembrandt,  Rubens  ^  or 
Rhine  castles.  But  he  says  of  Diisseldorf  that  it  is  easily  the 
finest  thing  in  Germany,  and  would  be  quite  beautiful  "  even  in 
Rome.^'  ®  The  English,  and,  curiously  enough,  the  French  them- 
selves receive  very  slight  individual  attention. 


"  proved  "  that  the  Greeks  did  not  invent  the  arts,  but  had  them  from  the  Bar- 
barians. Perhaps  ''prouve"  should  not  carry  too  much  weight.  (P.  &  F.j 
II,  489. ) 

*  Cf.  for  tragedy,  sup.,  p.  49. 

^  N.  B. — for  thorough  discounting  of  Pre-Kenaissance. 

3  Foy.,  II,  350-1. 

*P.  <fe  i^.,  I,  274— cf.  inf.,  under  Literature,  p.  124 f. 

^  Some  conventional  adjectives  for  this  painter,  cf .  inf. ,  p.  63. 

«Foy.,  II,  186-7. 


60  The  Aesthetic  Dodnne  of  Montesquieu. 


CHAPTER  X. 

PAINTING-RAPHAEL  AND  MICHELANGELO. 

Our  author  has  more  to  say  about  painting  and  painters  than 
any  other  branch.  He  is  quite  clear  as  to  certain  cardinal  princi- 
ples, which  he  deems  necessary.  The  greatest  of  these,  of  course, 
is  "  imitez  la  nature.^'  ^  That  he  does  so  is  the  chief  merit  of 
Raphael,^  who  submerges  thereby  his  own  manner — or  mannerism  : 

*'  Raphael  est  presque  le  seul  de  tous  les  peintres  qui  ne  soit  pas  mani^r^  ;  ce 
qui  vient  de  T  imitation  de  la  nature  telle  qu'elle  est,  et  non  de  la  fa9on  que  le 
peintre  y  met."  ' 

It  has  already  been  seen,  however,  that  selection  is  demanded  in 
the  midst  of  imitation.*  "  La  peinture  ne  prend  la  nature  que  1^ 
oft  elle  est  belle.''  *  He  had  rather  see  Raphael's  representation  of 
the  nude  than  a  real  Venus,  for  "  la  peinture  ne  nous  repr^sente 
que  les  beaut6s  des  femmes,  et  rien  de  ce  qui  pent  en  faire  voir  les 
d^fauts."  ®  Selection  may  even,  by  the  choice  of  here  a  trait  and 
there  a  beauty,  tend  to  the  formation  of  a  type  and  to  the  suppres- 
sion of  individual  expression  or  resemblance.  So  in  the  apologue 
of  the  painter,  who,  desiring  to  create  a  goddess  of  beauty,  brought 
together  the  fairest  Greeks  and  chose  from  each  "  ce  qu'elle  avait 
de  plus  agr^able."  '  Yet  he  criticises  severely  lack  of  expression,® 
whole  galleries  "  oft  tout  se  ressemble."  ^ 

He  is  a  friend  to  Order, ^'^  within  reason.  It  is  important  in 
grouping  and  in  massing,  in  confusion  itself,  as  in  battlepieces  ; " 
but  symmetry  in  arrangement  should  be  atoned  for  by  variety  in 

^  "  En  efifet  il  faut  que  la  peinture  trouve  I'art  de  nous  montrer  dans  un  tableau 
les  m^mes  choses  que  nous  montre  la  nature." —7 Foy.,  t,  257,  cf.  sup.  p.  30.  Also 
vn,  124. 

Toy.,  I,  229,  231.  ^Voy.,  i,  240.  *Cf.  sup.,  p.  30.  ^vii,  121. 

•P.  &  F.,  II,  67.     Cf.  sup.,  p.  30.  'i,  239-40.  Wmj.,  i,  198. 

*  "  Ce  qui  est  contre  la  nature  ^^—Voy.,  i,  227. 

"Cf.  sup.,  p.  39.  "vn,  122,  124. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  61 

attitude.^  He  lauds  simplicity  and  condemns  affected  and  inap- 
propriate ornament.^  It  is  characteristically  Montesquivian  that 
he  condemns  vaghezza  as  lessening  strength. — "  Je  me  m^fie  tou- 
jours  de  la  vaghezza :  elle  est  aux  d^pens  de  la  force  " — and  of  the 
chiaroscuro,  the  bodies  thus  treated  seem  clearer,  because  feebler.^ 
A  brief  passage  in  praise  of  the  Farnese  gallery  will  give  a  rSsumS 
of  his  principles : 

'*  .  .  .  les  tableaux  sont  simples:  peu  de  figures,  et  si  bien  ordonn^es  qu'il  para  it 
qu'il  y  en  a  encore  moins.  Les  paysages  ne  sont  pas  non  plus  remplis  et  confus  : 
un  beau  ciel  et  peu  de  choses,  comme  la  nature  .  .  ."  * 

A  few  of  his  more  significant  points,  in  the  matter  of  technique, 
may  be  mentioned/  There  are  "  regies  gen^rales  sur  le  dessin,''  ^ 
as  to  the  inclining  of  the  head,  the  advancement  of  the  body  in 
running,  the  leaning  on  one  foot,  which  point  chiefly  to  an  avoid- 
ance of  "coldness''  and  to  the  principles  of  variety  and  contrast. 
He  believes  in  the  smallness  of  extremities  and  svelte  figures  for 
grace,  since  Raphael  did  thus.^  For  the  same  reason  he  prefers 
soft  contours,  not  too  marked  or  sec.^  Chiaroscuro  is  one  of  his 
favorite  points  : 

''  Ce  sont  les  reflets  qui  font  saillir  les  corps,  et  la  science  du  peintre  consiste  a 
disposer  les  choses  de  fafon  que  les  lumieres,  les  ombres,  les  reflets,  fassent  I'effet 
desir^."8 

Of  the  various  exponents  of  painting,  he  can  admire  in  the 
ancients  only  their  drawing,  their  attitudes,  and  particularly  their 
secret  for  conserving  colors.^*^  The  Primitives  struck  him  as 
impossible.  Especially  horrible  are  the  efforts  in  the  Campo 
Santo  at  Pisa,  where  the  bad  taste  and  the  "  imaginations  singu- 
li^res  "  of  that  time  are  well  displayed. ^^  Giotto  is  a  little  better 
than  the  others.  He  finds  that  the  Venetian  school  "avait 
beaucoup  de  facility,  et  de  hardiesse,  et  de  grands  traits ;  "  ^^  but 
their  attitudes  are  forced. ^'^     The  Flemish,  on  the  contrary,  have 

lyn,  126.  ^Voy.,  i,  259. 

Toy.,  I,  249,  cf.  i,  238.  *Fot/.,  i,  226. 

^As  a  rule  I  cannot  think  him  the  inventor  of  the  technical  dicta. 

«  Voy. ,  I,  241-2.  '  Voy. ,  i,  228.  « Vay. ,  i,  84. 

Toy.,  I,  234,  cf.  pp.  249,  256.  ^Woy.,  i,  198. 

^^Voy.,  I,  158.  ''Voy.,  i,  85. 


62  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

no  "  grands  traits,"  ^  nor  majesty.^     His  solitary  observation  con- 
cerning the  French  school  is  that : 

"Les  Franpais  ont  d'assez  belles  expressions  des  passions  dans  les  visages ;  raais 
leur  coloris  est  faible  et  n'a  pas  de  force."  ^ 

Among  individuals,  his  preferences  on  the  whole  seem  rather 
for  strength  than  for  sweetness.  He  has  an  ecstatic  admiration 
for  Guilio  Romano,  whose  work  at  Mantua  was  done  in  a 
way  "que  Ton  peut  regarder  comme  le  chef-d'oeuvre  de  la 
peinture."  *  His  ordonnance — especially  in  battles,  where  others 
make  confusion  —  his  costuming  and  his  drawing  show  great 
knowledge.  Daniele  da  Volterra  is  another  favorite,  whose  works 
are  admirable.^  It  is  in  regard  to  this  painter  that  M.  Doumic 
accuses  Montesquieu  of  timidly  renouncing  his  preferences  in 
favor  of  the  "  classement  officiel."  ^  But  it  will  be  seen  in  this 
passage  that  the  President  keeps  his  preferences,  exactly  in  spite 
of  the  usual  ranking : 

"  Mais  j'avoue  que  j'ai  trouv6  la  Desccnte  de  Croix  de  Daniel 
de  Volterre  .  .  .  au-dessus  de  ce  tableau,^  quoiqu'on  le  mette  le 
deuxieme  de  Rome,  et  celui  de  Daniel  le  troisi^me."  ®  It  is  quite 
true,  however,  as  M.  Doumic  says,  that  there  is  some  "  fracas 
des  6loges  "  for  the  Carracci,  Guide  aqd  Dominichino.® 

Of  the  other  Italian  painters — and  it  is  practically  only  the 
Italians  that  he  discusses — he  approves  the  "  majesty  "  of  Vero- 
nese's draperies,^^  the  "  grandes  benches "  ^^  and  that  fusion  of 
colors  which  is  in  Correggio's  priceless  Notte  alone.'^  Carlo  Dolci 
has  at  any  rate  a  finished  manner. ^^  Guido  Reni  is  notable  for 
grace,  and  his  Martyr  of  the  Innocents  (at  Bologna)  is  deemed 
not  inferior  to  the  Auroraj  for  color  and  expression.^*  Titian's 
Tribuna  Venus  is  admirable — "  vous  croyez  voir  la  (;hair  et  le 
corps  m^me."  ^^    In  the   Tribute- Money,  the  facial  expression  is 

^Voy,,  I,  85.  2yjj^  141^  3Yoy.,  i,  85-6. 

*Voy.,  II,  116-7.  ^Voy.,  i,  207.  ^Voyages  de  Mont,  pp.  929-30. 

■^The  St.  Jerome  of  Dominichino.  ^Voy.,  i,  247. 

»  Loc.  cit.  i»  VII,  134. 

"  A  propos  of  the  "Madoiina  chi  adora,"  Voy.,  ii,  338. 

12  Voy.,  II,  97.  13  Voy.,  ii,  340.  i*  Voy..  ii,  95. 

i^Foy.,  II,  337.       ~ 


>MVER5JTY 

TAg  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  63 

what  seizes  him/  as  also  in  Leonardo's  Last  Supper,  where  he 
dwells  upon  the  different  passions  depicted  on  the  faces  of  the 
Apostles.^ — Out  of  Italy,  Rubens'  Judgment  comes  in  for  a  word 
of  praise.^ 

At  Florence,  where  there  is  "  rien  que  d'exquis,''  ^  he  was 
particularly  interested  in  the  chamber  of  Selbstbildnisse,  as  afford- 
ing excellent  opportunity  for  the  comparison  of  manners.  Else- 
where,^ however,  he  fears  that  the  sample  is  too  small,  a  painter's 
manner  coming  out  far  better  in  a  "grande  ordonnance."  He 
traces,  in  an  amusing  way,  national  characteristics  in  the  various 
groups — the  French  displaying  an  inexpensive  finery,  the  Italians 
with  an  air  of  singularity  and  vivacity,  the  Flemish  grave  and 
off'ering,  as  more  in  their  line,  a  little  genre  painting  within  a 
painting.     Generally  all  have  "  un  air  qui  marque  du  genie."  ^ 

But  the  most  of  his  study  and  appreciation  is  for  two  masters, 
whom,  though  one  is  equally  prominent  in  sculpture,  it  is  best  not 
to  divide  in  their  death.  He  is  nowhere  more  individual,  more 
outspoken,  than  in  his  valuations  of  Raphael  and  of  Michelangelo. 

If  the  first  may  have  copied  the  second,^  if  he  dealt  perhaps 
with  lesser  subjects,^  yet  he  is  as  renowned  for.  grace  as  the  other 
is  for  force.^  Gfrdce  ^^  and  douceur  "  are  among  his  specific  marks. 
But  there  are  also  a  great  simplicity  ^^  and  purity,^^  a  willingness 
not  to  strike  at  first,  the  ability  which  promises  little  and  pays 
much.^^  He  shuns  the  ordinary  artifice  of  weakening  colors  for 
distance,  but  shows  his  art  in  the  gradation  of  lights.^^  Roundness 
and  smallness  of  contour,  the  slightest  points  in  attitude,  the  use 
of  little  contrasts,  just  distribution  in  chiaroscuro,  all  these  are  of 
his  mastery.  ^^ 

If  his  works  do  not  strike  at  once,  it  is  because  "  il  imite  trop 
bien  la  nature ;  de  fayon  qu'on  la  prend  pour  elle-m^me :  car  je 

1  Voy.,  n,  97.  ^  Voy.,  i,  97.  ^  y^^^  jj^  igg, 

*  VII,  227.  5  Voy.,  II,  339.  ^  y^y^^  jj^  339-40. 

■'Because,  he  thinks,  the  God  of  the  Loggie  resembles  that  of  the  Sistine 
Chapel. — Voy.,  ii,  8. 

^  VII,  348. — Though  one  hardly  sees  how  that  can  be. 

»iv,  356.  lOFoi/.,  I,  256.  ^^Voy.,  i,  257. 

12  VII,  134,  136,  Voy.,  i,  238.  i^  vii,  348. 

^*Voy.,  I,  230.  ^^Voy.,  i,  227.  ^^Voy.,  i,  228-230. 


64  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

ne  suis  point  frapp6  d'admiration  quand  je  vois  un  homme  ou  une 
femme."  He  uses  no  constrained  attitudes  for  the  sake  of  an 
artificial  chiaroscuro,  and  a  forced  variety.  Thus  his  naturel  makes 
his  greatness.^ 

Among  his  masterpieces,  the  St.  Petefr  is  a  fine  example  of  the 
gradation  of  lights.^  This  also  marks  the  story  of  Psyche,  as  well 
as  the  contrast  in  uniformity  of  the  expression.^  The  Loggie 
awaken  the  old  cry  : 

"  Quelle  correction  de  dessin  !  Quelle  beauts  !  Quel  naturel !  Ce  n'est  point 
de  la  peinture,  c'est  la  nature  m^me  !  .  .  .  Enfin,  il  semble  que  Dieu  se  sert  de 
la  main  de  Eaphael  pour  cr^er."  * 

The  School  of  Athens  excites  the  remark  that  Raphael  is  not 
manierL^  All  his  best  qualities  appear  in  the  Transfiguration, 
which  has,  however,  the  slight  blemish  that  the  accessory  of  the 
possM^  is  too  large  in  the  foreground.®  But  of  all  his  paintings — 
and  our  Gascon  declares  that  Raphael  must  have  lived  a  thousand 
years  to  paint  what  he  did^  — the  Madonna  della  Sedia  "  eifaces '' 
every  Virgin  he  has  seen.^.  It  is  "  autant  au-dessus  des  ouvrages 
ordinaires  de  Raphael  que  Raphael  est  au-dessus  des  peintres 
ordinaires.^'  ^ 

He  is  all  praise  for  the  Urbinate ;  Michelangelo  he  occasionally 
condemns ;  yet  the  recognition  of  the  latter's  more  Cyclopean 
genius  is  constantly  felt.  His  great  taste  can  be  seen  dawning  in 
his  predecessors  and  continuing  in  those  whom  he  left  behind.^'' 
In  his  very  sketches  "  on  trouve  du  grand,"  ^^  and  they  should  be 
treasured  like  those  lines  which  Virgil  never  finished.^^ 

He  too  shows  all  of  the  antique  simplicity,^^  making  ornament 
a  secondary  consideration.^^  A  prime  characteristic  is  his  nobility.^^ 
He  touched  nothing  which  he  did  not  ennoble,  lending  majesty 
even  to  a  Bacchus. 

For  his  paintings,  the  Passion  is  to  be  noted  for  the  calmness  of 
the  Virgin,  "  instruite  de  ce  grand  mystere."  ^®     There  is  a  sottise 


^Voy.,  I,  230-1. 

''Voy.,  I,  233. 

'Voy,,  I,  227. 

*Foy.,  I,  239. 

5Foy.,i,  240. 

«Foy.,  I,  247. 

Woy.,  II,  114. 

Woy,i,  188. 

^Voy.,  II,  352. 

^0  VII,  226. 

"  VII,  142. 

^2  VII,  29;   Voy., 

II,  327. 

^Woy.,  II,  6. 

^'Voy.,  II,  327. 

15  vn,  141-2. 

16  VII,  141. 

1 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  65 

in  his  Adam  and  Eve,^  repeated  in  the  Judgment,  which  also  lacks 
perspective.^     However : 

''Eien  ne  donne  une  plus  grande  id^e  du  g^nie  de  Michel- Ange,  que  cette 
peinture,  et  je  ne  crois  pas  que  les  Loges  de  Raphael  valent  mieux  ...  II  y  a 
dans  ses  peintures  une  majesty,  une  force  dans  les  attitudes,  une  grande  maniere 
qui  etonne  F esprit." 

In  his  architecture,  he  evinces  a  mastering  originality.^  None 
knew  better  his  art,  and  none  has  played  more  with  proportion. 
"Avec  une  connaisance  exacte  de  tout  ce  qui  pent  faire  plaisir," 
he  had  an  art  apart  for  each  work. 

In  St.  Peter's,  however,  it  is  the  exact  proportion  which  miti- 
gates the  massiveness,  making  the  immense  dome  seem  even  light.* 
There  is  no  single  point  of  sufficient  smallness  to  serve  as  a 
standard  by  which  to  judge  its  size.  "  Mais  a  mesure  que  Fon 
examine,  Foeil  la  voit  s'agrandir,  I'^tonnement  augemente."  It  is 
only  on  reflection  that  its  full  beauty  is  felt.^  He  does  not  care 
for  the  fa9ade,*'  but  as  a  whole  it  is  the  "  merveilleux  qui  etonne."  ^ 

The  Porta  di  San  Giovanni  is  ^'  admirable  pour  son  rustique  et 
sa  force."  ^ — As  to  the  San  Lorenzo,  the  whole  design  seems  to 
him  ^^  pitoyable,"  the  pilasters  too  short,  the  ensemble  inharmoni- 
ous.^ But  the  New  Sacristy  ^^ — and  here  is  where  architecture 
merges  into  sculpture — is  "noble,  simple  et  belle."  ^^  Here  the 
grand  gout  reigns.  For  the  statues,  if  we  find  "figures  fort 
ressenties,"  if  the  women  are  too  muscular,^^  yet  the  contours  and 
proportions  of  the  men  are  most  just,  the  four  statues  and  the  two 
princes  are  all  admirable  in  attitude.^^  This  is  the  last  word  of 
praise :  "De  tous  les  sculpteurs  il  n^  a  que  Michel- Ange  qui  soit 
comparable  aux  Anciens."  ^^ 


Woy.,  J,  185.  Woy.,  i,  246.  ^Yii,  143. 

*vii,  136-7.  ^Vmj.,  I,  238.  Woy.,  it,  33. 

W(yy.,  r,  75.  Woy.,  ii,  35.  ^Voy.,  i,  189-190. 

^®  This,  it  may  be  recalled,  is  the  only  part  for  which  Michelangelo  is  responsible 
in  tutto. 

'Woy.,u,d5S, 


66  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesqiiieu. 


CHAPTER  XI. 
SCULPTURE. 

The  sculptor's  art  seems  to  appeal  to  Montesquieu  much  less 
than  the  painter's.  He  finds  it  ^  cold/  and  his  phrases  of  admira- 
tion are  apt  to  be  short  ejaculations,  more  forcible  than  convincing.^ 
There  is  little  of  the  delighted  lingering,  the  true  lover's  passion 
for  single  works,  and  there  is  decidedly  more  study  from  the 
historical  standpoint,  particularly  for  the  ancients.  Few  modems 
are  mentioned. 

Comparatively  resourceless  by  the  side  of  the  painter,  the 
sculptor  can  induct  lire  and  movement  into  his  works  only  "  en 
mettant  ses  figures  dans  de  belles  attitudes  et  leur  donnant  de 
beaux  airs  de  tdte."  ^  He  must  put  them  into  action,  if  the 
position  is  stiff :  "  car  la  sculpture  est  naturellement  froide."  We 
have  already  heard  of  contrast  in  attitudes,^  after  symmetry  in  parts. 
Statuary  has  the  further  disadvantage  that  it  must  be  viewed  on  all 
sides,  which  makes  it  more  difficult  as  compared  with  painting.^ 
"Ainsi  ce  qui  est  beau  en  peinture,  o^  il  n'y  a  qu'une  vue,  est 
souvent  trds  laid  en  sculpture."  ^  He  does  not  admit  the  use  of 
light  for  relief  or  perspective,  since  one  side  should  not  shine  at 
the  expense  of  the  other. ^  He  recommends  the  pyramidal  forma- 
tion in  a  group.^  He  has  paid  some  attention  to  contours  and 
enumerates  four  or  five  kinds — of  women,  noble  men,^  powerful 
men,^  old  men  and  rustics.^ 

*Many  of  the  statues  are  ''admirable"  without  specification.  Voy.,  i,  241, 
267).  There  are  also  "  autres  statues  exquises  en  grand  nombre,"  (  Voy.,  i,  217), 
whose  exquisiteness  is  not  analysed. 

2P.  &  F.,  II,  70.  ^YU,  126.     Cf.  sup.,  p.  39. 

*P.  &F.,  n,  72.  ^Voy.,  i,  271. 

*  Voy. ,  I,  272.     This  seems  rather  hard  on  '  variety  '  and  '  contrast. ' 

''Voy.,  1,  267.  ^  Round,  like  women — e.  g.,  the  Apollo. 

^e.  g.,  the  IJercules  Farnese. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  67 

He  makes  the  singular  statement — which,  however,  he  is  in  two 
minds  about  inserting — that,  since  the  human  race  has  probably 
changed  its  form : 

"Les  sculpteurs  d'aujourd'hui  ne  doivent  done  prendre  pour  modele  una  statue 
grecque,  ni  juger  des  statues  grecques  par  nos  figures  modernes."  ^ 

But  the  Ancients  are  worthy  of  all  admiration,  and  therefore, 
according  to  his  own  principles,^  of  imitation.  The  cause  for  their 
superiority  is  the  old  one :  "  On  voit  dans  les  antiques  la  nature 
presque  toujours  imitee/^  ^  Again,  they  treated  draping  better,^ 
and  that  for  two  reasons — our  Carrara  marble  is  harder,  and  our 
costumes  are  often  graceless.*  By  the  finesse  of  draperies,  by  the 
degree  of  softness  and  roundness  in  the  limbs,  by  the  treatment  of 
the  hair,  beard  and  ears,  we  may  judge  as  to  the  relative  antiquity 
of  a  statue.^  The  ancients  sinned,  however,  in  two  respects :  in 
having  the  drapery  wetted,  colle  to  the  flesh,  for  revealing  better 
the  nude ;  ^  and  in  badly  representing  children  as  too  well-formed 
and  muscular.^ 

We  must  distinguish  here  between  the  Greek  and  the  Roman 
taste.^  The  Greek  statues,  generally  naked,  show  beards  and 
small  heads.  Their  race,  with  Apelles  and  Phidias,^  went  farther 
in  sculpture  than  the  Romans.^^  The  art  of  the  latter  declined  as 
the  Christians  prevailed."  Hasty  and  poor  work  w^as  done,  partly 
from  the  absence  of  the  Emperors  in  the  provinces ;  even  as  it 
befell  in  Florence,  between  Giovanni  da  Bologna  and  Foggini.^^ 

For  special  statues  he   has  sworn  an  eternal  fidelity  to  the 
Medici  Venus.^^     Leaving    out  of  account  the  disproportionate  . 
accessories,^''  it  is  a  model  not  of  Venus,  but  of  beauty  itself,  "  et 

^  P.&F.,  II,  205 — But  he  proceeds  to  recommend,  just  below,  the  Medici  Venus 
as  the  feminine  model  for  all  time. 

^Cf.  sup.,  p.  50,  where  the  English  were  ''singular"  in  admiring  without 
imitating. 

Way.,  II,  306.  ^P.  &F.,  ii,  71.  Woy.,  ii,  304. 

Woy.,  I,  269.  ''Voy.,  i,  265.  Way.,  ii,  305-7. 

®  "  Ces  petits  insensds  de  Grecs,"  vii,  26. 

10 Foy.,  II,  307.  11  Cf.  Slip.,  p.  59.  i^  Foy.,  ii,  303-4. 

I'P.  &  F.,  II,  75 — "que  je  regarde  comme  le  meilleur  pr^dicateur  qu'aient 
jamais  eu  les  Florentins." 

1*  The  Cupids — work  of  an  apprentice. 


68  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

la  decrire  c'est  dire  comme  une  femme  doit  dtre  et  comme  on  la 
doit  repr^senter/'  ^  There  are  detailed  observations  on  several 
other  statues  at  Florence.  He  notes  and  praises  particularly  the 
AniinouSj  and  Prometheus,  The  Wrestlers ;  the  Leda  and  Bacchus 
of  Michelangelo.^  At  Rome  we  have  little  more  than  hasty- 
visits  and  slight  unfelt  phrases.  He  was  beginning  to  weary  of  it. 
The  Apollo  might  have  seduced  him,  had  he  not  seen  Venus  first.^ 
The  Gladiator,  the  Apollo,  the  Antinous,  the  Laohoon,  the  Hercu- 
les Fai-nese, — are  mentioned,  and  barely  mentioned,  as  the  best.* 
The  only  modern  on  whom  he  dwells,  is,  naturally  enough, 
Bernini.  A  passing  fancy  for  this  pretty  sculptor — who  could  at 
any  rate  give  long  odds  on  morbidezza,^  and  did  Borghese's  head 
with  wonderful  realism*' — was  later  abundantly  corrected.  He 
has  ruined  the  Roman  School ;  '^  he  is  mani^r^  and  a  petit-maitre  ;  ^ 
his  David  is  heavy,  and  his  Daphne  too  daintily  round.® 


Woy.,  II,  329.  ^Voy.,  n,  314  ff. 

*Voy.,  I,  241,  267.  ^Voy.,  i,  191. 

®  Voy.,  I,  267. — He  was  also  excellent  in  a  large  composition,  where  his  incor- 
rect drawing  showed  less,  and  very  dexterous  in  carving  small  folds,  etc.  (  Voy., 
I,  268). 

TYoy-,  I,  256.  ^Voy.,  I,  267. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  69 


CHAPTER  XII. 
ARCHITECTURE— THE   GOTHIC. 

There  is  a  fugitive  passage  in  the  Pens^es  et  Fragments  which 
shows  that  Montesquieu  understood  that,  in  dealing  with  archi- 
tecture, we  leave  the  domain  of  the  representative  or  imitative 
arts  and  come  to  a  class  which  is  purely  presentative.^ 

It  may  be  well  to  hear  him  expand  his  proposition  that  archi- 
tecture is  invariable  in  its  orders  and  proportions.^  Our  pleasure 
in  a  building  is  excited  by  certain  proportions  between  the  height 
of  a  column  and  its  diameter.^  There  are  (only)  five  degrees  of 
proportion  which  are  pleasurable,  and  these  make  the  five  orders, 
Tuscan,  Doric,  Ionic,  Corinthian  and  Composite.^  These  are 
incapable  of  change,  by  ornament,  by  disguise,  or  what  not, 
whether  in  number  or  in  relation.    For : — 

'^  Ce  ne  sont  pas  des  beaut^s  arbitraires  qui  puissent  etre  supplies  par  d'autres. 
Cela  est  pris  dans  la  nature,  et  il  me  serait  facile  d'expliquer  la  raison  physique  de 
ceci."  ^ 

This  hidebound  dictum,  startling  in  its  narrowness,  may  be 
reserved  for  further  comment.  He  adds  a  few  stray  principles, 
referring  to  the  importance  of  sailliey^  and  the  fact  that  obscurity 
may  increase  the  effect  of  greatness  in  churches.'^  He  appreciates 
that  the  artistic  grouping  of  buildings  is  a  consideration.^  At 
Rome,  he  is  glad  that  the  great  masters  have  built  their  churches 

^A  propos  of  saillie — "  car,  si  la  peinture,  qui  n'est  qu'une  imitation,  s' attache  si 
fort  £L  faire  fuir  on  avancer  les  corps,  que  sera-ce  de  I'architecture?"  (P.  &  F., 
11,74.) 

2  Cf.  sup.,  p.  39.  ^P.  &  R,  II,  76-7. 

*  Though  this  last  need  hardly  count.  Elsewhere  (P.  &  F.,  ii,  73),  he  objects 
to  a  certain  mingling  of  the  orders — "  Foeil  ne  pent  passer  de  la  grossidret^ 
du  rustique  a  la  gentillesse  de  I'ionien  ou  du  corinthien." 

^  P.  &  F.,  II,  77.  *^  Quoted,  preceding  page,  n.  1. 

^P.  &F.,  II,  74.  8  ^t  Pisa—  Voy. ,  i,  161. 


70  The  Aesthetic  Dodnne  of  Montesquieu. 

so  differently/  whereas  in  France  all  buildings  are  uniform.^ 
Uniformity  is  a  relative  matter.  Were  our  sight  more  feeble 
and  confused,  we  should  need  more  uniformity.^  Were  it  more 
distinct,  and  our  souls  larger  in  grasp,  we  should  require  more 
ornaments.  So  far  as  ornament  means  the  enriching  of  pilasters 
and  columns,  that  is  justified  ;  *  but  where  it  means  colifichetSj^  or  a 
multiplicity  in  richness,  as  with  the  Neapolitans,^  it  is  distinctly 
of  "  mauvais  go(it."  The  Gothic  is  fatiguing  with  ornament  and 
enigmas.^  The  Greeks,  with  their  few  and  great  divisions,  are 
still  his  model  for  majesty,  simplicity  and  yet  variety : 

**L' architecture  grecque,  au  contraire,  parait  uniforme ;  mais,  comme  elle  a 
les  divisions  qu'il  faut,  .  .  .  elle  a  cette  vari^t^  qui  la  fait  regarder  avec  plaisir." 

Among  the  monuments,  he  thinks  the  Verona  amphitheatre 
one  of  the  finest  bits  of  antiquity.^  But  the  most  of  his  admira- 
tion is  for  the  Italian  churches.  The  Florence  DuomOy  in  its 
majestic  beauty,*  is  one  of  the  greatest  of  edifices.^*^  Gothic  though 
it  be,  it  represents  "  le  grand  simple."  It  was  a  great  stroke  of 
genius  for  "ce  si^cle  rude,  oH  Parchitecture  grecque  n'^tait  pas 
connue."  ^^  So  for  the  Cologne  Cathedral,  in  the  same  genre, 
whose  leghret^  he  especially  commends. ^^  Notre-Dame  is  simply 
a  "  superbe  Mifice.'^  ^^ 

There  is  some  description  of  San  Marco,  whose  mosaic  and 
marqueterie  impress  him.^*  The  Cathedral  at  Frascati  surpasses 
any  thing  in  France,^^  and  the  Church  of  St.  Francis  at  Rimini 
is  "  magnificent."  ^® 

There  are  three  fine  palaces  in  the  world :  the  Luxembourg, 
the  Pitti,  and  the  Farnese  at  Rome.^^  The  Barberini  looks  too 
much  like  a  fortress.^^  What  strikes  him  at  Versailles  is  the 
"  envie  impuissante  qu'on  voit  partout  de  faire  de  belles  choses."  ^* 
He  thinks  little  of  Mansard,  who  might  have  added  wings  till 
doomsday,  without  achieving  the  great.^     And  he  considers  that 

^  There  may  be  then,  at  least,  variety  within  the  five  orders. 

2  Voy.,  I,  236.  »  VII,  118.  *  vii,  18.  ^  y^y^^  j^  ^ 

«  Vay.,  II,  9.  '  VII,  124.  «  y^y^^  j^  gy^  9  y^^^  jj^  349^ 

i»  Voy.,  II,  343.  "  Voy.,  11,  351.  ^^  y^y.,  11,  185.     ^^  i,  210. 

1*  Voy.,  I,  66.  15  Voy.,  11,  38.  i«  Vay.,  11,  79.       "  Vay.,  i,  274. 

»8  V&y.,  n,  37.  ^^P.  &  F.,  11,  77.      '^  P.  &  R,  11,  78. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  71 

Mansard  the  younger  showed  much  stupidity  in  applying  his 
uncle's,  Mansard  the  elder's  mansarde  to  the  palace.^  This  was 
intended  only  as  an  economic  device  for  bourgeois^ — according 
to  which  saying,  Paris  to-day  should  be  tenanted  solely  by  that 
class. 

His  chief  concern  in  architecture,  however,  was  to  discover 
whether  or  not  a  building  was  Gothic,  and  if  so,  whether  or  not  it 
had  redeeming  features.  In  his  condemnation  of  the  ^  Gothic ' — 
which  meant  for  him  about  what  ^  Boeotian  '  meant  for  Landor — 
he  is  on  a  par  with  his  age.  He  has  left  a  treatise  -on  the  subject,^ 
which  we  may  pass  in  review. 

The  Gothic  manner,  he  begins,  is  the  manner  of  no  particular 
people.  It  was  known  in  Rome  before  the  Goths.^  With  the 
exception  of  the  flourishing  of  sculpture  under  Hadrian,  the  arts 
had  fallen  as  Paganism  yielded  to  the  new  Christianity ;  ^  and 
there  are  abundant  indications  in  the  Florence  galleries  of  this 
decadence  previous  to  the  inundation  of  the  barbarians. 

It  was  not  then'  the  national  Gothic  manner.  "  C'est  la  mani^re 
de  la  naissance  ou  de  la  fin  de  Part.''  ^  The  progress,  so  far  as 
sculpture  is  concerned,  is  through  drawing  to  attitude,  movement 
and  finally  grace.  In  art's  decline,  grace  becomes  unknown. 
Soon  movement  and  variety  of  attitude  are  lost : 

''On  ne  songe  plus  qu'a  faire  bien  ou  mal  les  figures  et  on  les  met  dans  une 
position  unique.     C'est  ce  qu'on  appelle  la  maniere  gothique. 

"  Cette  position  unique  est  celle  qui  se  prdsente  d'abord  a  ceux  qui  ignorent 
Tart." 

It  is  marked  by  stiffness,  hardness,  an  abundance  of  symmetry, 
and,  in  the  end,  by  ignorance  of  drawing.  These  stages,  of 
decline  and  of  rise  respectively,  are  seen  in  the  reversion  from  the 
age  of  Pericles  to  the  Low  Empire;  and  in  the  development 
from  the  mediaeval  renewal  to  the  Renaissance. 

1  Voy.,  II,  74.  ^De  la  maniere  gothique,  Voy.,  ii,  367-375. 

'  Neither  in  architecture  nor  in  sculpture  did  the  taste  come  with  the  Goths, 
who  certainly  brought  no  workmen  with  them,  {Voy.,  ii,  304).  They  did  not 
introduce  the  manner,  but  they  confirmed  it,  in  making  ignorance  reign.  ( Ibid. , 
p.  303). 

*Cf.  mp.,  p.  59. 

s  "  Cest  le  gout  de  1' ignorance,"  Voy.,  ii,  304.     Cf.  Voy.,  i,  125. 


72  Tlie  Aesthetic  DoctHne  of  Montesquieu. 

He  goes  on  to  explain  ^  that  though  the  Greeks  took  their  art 
from  the  Egyptians,  the  latter,  being  ^  Gothic '  without  knowledge, 
could  not  father  the  Greek  perfection.  These  Egyptians,  poor  as 
to  attitude,  could  draw  admirably.  This  is  explained  by  a  passage 
from  Plato,  to  the  effect  that  the  Egyptians,  restrained  by  their 
religious  laws,  were  bound  always  to  work  in  the  same  style ;  but 
they  could  perfect  that  style,  i.  e.,  drawing  merely.^ 

Elsewhere,  he  has  still  more  to  say  concerning  the  Gothic,  as 
meaning  ignorance : 

"Lorsqu'on  ne  connait  pas  les  v^ritables  beaut^s,  on  s'iraagine  d'abord  que  la 
multiplicity  des  ornements  donnera  de  la  grace,  et  que  la  bcautd  augmentera  k 
proportion  du  nombre  des  choses  qui  composeront  le  tout  ...  II  n'y  a  que  les 
beaux  g^nies  qui  soient  d'abord  capables  du  grand  simple."  ' 

We  have  seen  that  the  Gothic,  as  opposed  to  the  Greek,  may 
seem  varied :  ^ 

"Mais  la  confusion  des  ornements  fatigue  par  leur  petitesse  .  .  .  de  maniSre 
qu'elle  d^plalt  par  les  endroits  m^mes  qu'on  a  choisis  pour  la  rendre  agr^ble."  ^ 

Hence  it  is  an  enigma,  an  obscure  poem.  The  "singular" 
Borromini  has  imagined  a  new  architecture,  a  Gothic  mis  en 
r^gle;^  he  has  thereby  departed  from  the  ancients;  and  his  pre- 
cedent should  never  be  followed.  Montesquieu  dislikes  "  ce  droit 
et  cette  raideur "  of  the  genre  J    He  condemns  statues  in  that  style.^ 

When  it  comes  to  illustrations,  he  feels  bound  to  apologize  for 
his  own  castle,  "gothique  a  la  v6rit§  mais  orn6  de  dehors  char- 
mants."  ^  It  is  chiefly  the  bad  taste  of  the  thing  that  spoils  it. 
At  Naples,  with  ornaments  and  magnificence,  he  finds  "aucun 
goiit :  un  golit  gothique.''  ^^ 

At  Florence,  the  Gothic  is  better  than  elsewhere.  So  for  Santa 
Maria  Novella,  the  Duomo,  and  the  Campanile  ^^ — "  II  fallait  que 

^  What  follows  is  hardly  very  relative  to  the  Gothic,  but  is  nicely  elucidative  of 
several  other  points.  Cf .  for  the  Greek  provenance,  sup. ,  p.  58  ;  for  religion,  sup. , 
pp.  58-9. 

^  The  end  of  the  treatise  has  been  given,  in  connection  with  religion,  sup. ,  p.  58. 

»  Voy.,  II,  304-5.  *Cf.  sup.,  p.  70.  ^yu,  124. 

^Voy.,  II,  32,  34.  ''Voy.,  ii,  303. 

Way.,  II,  303,  355,  360.       »vii,  271.  ^Toy.,  ii,  6. 

^^Voy.,  I,  169;  Voy.,  ii,  344-5.  He  admires,  for  the  Campanile,  its  gradation, 
its  composition,  and  the  fact  that  ''les  ornements  sont  dans  le  tout  et  non  dans  les 
parties." 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  73 

ces  grands  g^nies  fussent  siip^rieurs  a  Fart  de  ce  temps-Id,."  They 
executed  with  taste  the  things  of  bad  taste.  The  Duomo  at  Pisa 
also  is  conceded  to  be  beautiful,  and  the  little  Spina  has  a  surpris- 
ing Ug^rete^ — 

''C'est  le  morceau  gothique  le  plus  achev^  que  j'aie  vu,  et  le  petit  ouvrage  a 
de  la  beautd  autant  qu'il  peut  y  en  avoir  dans  un  mauvais  goAt." 

He  is  forced  to  admit  that  the  Gothic  seems  better  suited  to 
churches  than  another  architecture,^  since  it  is  different  from  the 
actual,  and  the  Deity  should  be  distinguished.  As  to  the  point 
of  leg^ret^,^  this  may  be  allied  with  his  distinction  of  two  kinds, 
the  "gothique  l^ger'^  and  another.  The  distinction,  his  editor 
thinks,  would  correspond  with  that  between  the  ogival  and  the 
(late)  Romanesque.*  Certainly  several  of  the  above  remarks 
must  apply  to  the  latter  style.  It  is  sufficiently  evident  through- 
out that  the  term  ^  gothique '  is  used  in  the  old,  loose,  depreciatory 
sense,  without  its  later  definite  significance. 


^Voy.,  I,  156-7.  Woy.,  i,  43.  ^Ci.  sup.,  p.  39.  Woy.,  i,  299. 


74  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 


CHAPTER  XIII. 
MUSIC  AND  DANCING. 

The  remarks  on  music  deal  chiefly  with  the  Italians  and  with 
operas.  He  advances  the  paradox  that  the  more  imperfect  the 
'art'  of  music,  the  more  surprising  have  been  its  effects.^  The 
reason  is  that  early  peoples  had  louder  ^  instruments  which  dinned 
into  ears  "  qui  ne  sont  pas  accoutum§es  h  la  musique  ou  plut6t  k 
une  musique  meilleure,  qui  plait  plus,  quioqu'elle  4meuve  moins." 
But  as  the  new  kind  began  to  please  more,  the  old  began  to 
move  less. 

From  this  he  springs  to  a  recognition  of  the  higher  harmony.* 
The  principle  of  ars  celare  artem  again  appears  in  this  : 

"Les  musiciens  ont  reconnu  que  la  musique  qui  se  chante  le  plus  facilement 
est  la  plus  difficile  ^  composer."  * 

Although,  in  an  incidental  way,  he  may  call  the  tenderest 
music  the  most  divine,  yet  on  the  whole  it  appears  that  the 
sentimental  still  fails  to  please  him.  He  admires  the  accords^ 
the  melody  and  harmony  at  Paphos,  while  distrustful  of  "cette 
langueur  qu'on  rencontre  si  souvent  en  voulant  chercher  ce  qui 
touche."  ^  He  is  contemptuous  of  "  Part  de  faire  jurer  une  dis- 
cordante  guitare,"  ^  as  well  as  of  those  who  would  have  the 
blessed  play  upon  the  flute.^ 

It  has  been  seen  that  music,  among  the  Greeks,  contributed 
to  "  adoucir  les  moeurs."  ®  This  is  on  the  authority  of  the 
"judicious"  Polybius,  with  whom  agree  Plato,  Aristotle  and  "all 

^R&F.,  11,  67-8. 

^  The  recognition  of  emotion  as  a  factor  is  something  ;  but  it  is  certainly  very 
catholic  to  include  noise  among  the  varieties  of  music. 

'ii,  192 — "des  dissonances  .  .  .  concourent  ^  1' accord  total." 

*  VII,  140.  5vn^487.  6i,  260. 

'1,389.  8Cf.  «up.,  p.  28. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  75 

the  ancients."  ^  It  is  one  of  their  political  principles.  The 
reason  is  that  warlike  exercises  needed  to  be  tempered  by  some 
softer  means,  and  music  was  the  most  appropriate  for  this.^  It 
would  be  good  for  those  of  us  who  are  addicted  to  the  chase, 
which,  like  the  exercises  of  the  Greeks,  excites  only  the  rougher 
passions. 

"La  musique  les  excite  toutes,  et  peut  faire  sentir  ^  I'ame  la  douceur,  la  piti^, 
la  tendresse,  le  doux  plaisir.^  Nos  auteurs  de  morale,  qui,  parmi  nous,  proscri- 
vent  si  fort  les  theatres,  nous  font  assez  sentir  le  pouvoir  que  la  musique  a  sur 
nos  ames."  * 

He  says  in  another  place  that  the  Chinese  legislators  likewise 
apply  music  "  pour  les  moeurs  .  .  .  comme  les  Grecs.'^  ^  Yet  in 
the  Bacchanals,  "  le  long  usage  du  chant,  surtout  les  hurlements, 
abrutissent  encore."  ^ 

All  these  are  readily  seen  to  be  economic  considerations. 

He  values  particularly  the  Italian  music,  although  he  considers 
their  concerts  suitable  for  infernal  punishment.^  The  Italians  are 
most  susceptible,  are  transported  musically,  in  comparison  with  the 
English.^  Their  excellent  church  music  makes  even  devotion 
delicious.®     In  general — 

"Dans  mon  s^jour  en  Italic,  je  me  suis  extremement  convert!  sur  la  musique 
italienne.  II  me  semble  que,  dans  la  musique  fran9aise,  les  instruments  accom- 
pagnent  la  voix  et  que  dans  1' italienne,  ils  la  prennent  et  I'enl^vent.  La  musique 
italienne  se  plie  mieux  que  la  franpaise,  qui  semble  roide.  C'est  comme  un 
lutteur  plus  agile.     L'une  entre  dans  I'oreille,  1' autre  la  meut."  ^° 

Again,  he  thinks  it  astonishing  that  the  inconstant  French  have 
kept  their  old  music,  their  old  airs,  the  operas  of  Lulli."  The 
Italians  demand  always  new  operas.     "  Serait-ce  que  leur  musique 

^iii,  160.  ^lu,  162-3. 

'  Thus  finally  admitting  sentiment. 

*iii,  163.  ^P.&F.,i,  155. 

•Which  seems  fully  as  reasonable — Mel.  in.,  p.  127. 

'VII,  479.  8 IV,  149.  ^P.  &  R,  ii,  243. 

^°P.  &  F.,  II,  69.  Concerning  the  French,  in  this  form  also,  he  is  not  enthusi- 
astic, and  says  only  this  of  their  chief  composers:  "Rameau  est  Corneille ;  et 
Lulli,  Racine ;  Lulli  fait  de  la  musique  comme  un  Ange  ;  Rameau  fait  de  la 
musique  comme  un  Diable"  (P.  &  F.,  ii,  69). 

»Foy.,  I,  220. 


76  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

est  plus  susceptible  de  donner  du  nouveau?"  They  can  no  longer 
suffer  the  old  style. 

Opera,  indeed,  is  the  Italian  specialty  that  he  prefers.^  "  Tout 
ce  qui  est  spectacle  charme  les  yeux  italiens,"  and  it  would  be 
useless  to  give  them  an  opera  "  sans  decorations."  No  one  would 
go.^  Their  rapture  at  an  opera  is  audible.^  Formerly  the  finest 
in  Europe  were  to  be  heard  at  Venice ;  but  now  they  are  no 
better  there  than  in  most  of  the  other  towns.'' 

It  is  the  whole  genrey  however,  whether  at  home  or  abroad, 
that  meets  with  his  approbation.  He  may  well  make  Rica 
declare  that  what  goes  on,  for  society's  ceremonies,  is  the  same  at 
the  Fran9ais  and  the  Op^ra — all  the  difference  being  that  they 
speak  at  one  and  sing  at  the  other.^  That  he  takes  the  matter 
seriously  is  evident  from  another  passage,  where  he  says  the 
moderns  are  the  inventors  of  this  kind  of  spectacle,  "  uniquement 
fait  pour  ravir  les  sens  et  pour  enchanter  Fimagination.''  ^  It  is 
madef  to  be  admired  and  not  to  be  examined,  and  "  la  raison  s'est 
indign^e  en  vain ''  against  the  ressorts  which  it  employs — ressorts 
which  tragedy  rejects.  These  are  drawn  from  "  la  Fable  ancienne 
et  modeme,"  and  most  happily  used.^ 

"  Tout  ce  que  nous  avons  de  plus  exquis  et  de  plus  d^licat,  tout  ce  que  le  coeur 
a  de  plus  tendre  se  trouve  dans  les  operas  de  Quinaut  {sic),  Fontenelle,  La  Motte, 
Danchet,  Koi,  etc." 

The  choice  of  names  is  the  only  thing  that  makes  us  hesitate  in 
accepting  this  verdict.  He  expresses  somewhat  the  same  ideas 
in  the  Gout.  If  opera  is,  in  a  way,  contrary  to  reason,  it  should 
yet  depart  from  it  as  liitle  as  possible.^  In  Italy,  he  could 
not  bear  to  hear  Cato  and  Caesar  sing  ariettes  on  the  stage ;  and 
in  drawing  their  subjects  from  history,  the  Italians  show  less  taste 
than  the  French,  who  draw  them  "  de  la  Fable  ou  des  romans." 
By  the  introduction  of  the  marvelous,  "  Tinconvenient  du  chant 
diminue,"  what  would  be  extraordinary  seeming  even  natural, 

^  "  J'ai  bien  pris  gout  a  ces  operas  italiens,"  Voy.,  i,  186. 

2 Foy.,  I,  223.  Hy,U9.  Woy.,  I,  24, 

^i,  122 ;  cf.  inf.,  p.  115.  ep.  &  F.,  i,  226. 

'  "  L' esprit  m6me  y  a  gagn^  "  (Ibid) .  ^  vii,  144  ;  cf.  sup.,  p.  50. 


The  AeAetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  77 

magic  and  mythology  appearing  almost  reasonable.  In  this~one 
point,  then,  the  Italians  are  inferior. 

He  speaks  of  songs  only  in  a  secondary  way.  He  ridicules  the 
political  or  topical  chanson,^  and  mentions  the  convulsive  effect 
of  certain  ditties,  presumably  Bacchanalian.^  Apollo  would  dis- 
own such  efforts ;  but  Bacchus  prefers  "  un  d^sordre  enjoue  a 
la  contrainte  de  Texacte  harmonic.'^  ^  The  President  seems  to 
remember  the  Etrennes  de  la  St.  Jean.'^ 

Dancing  and  even  "  le  jeu,"  as  somewhat  cognate  subjects  from 
his  own  point  of  view,  may  receive  summary  treatment  here. 
There  is  one  tolerably  significant,  as  well  as  tolerably  malin 
passage  on  the  dance  : 

' '  La  danse  nous  plait  par  la  legeret^,  par  une  certaine  grace,  par  la  beautd  et 
la  variete  des  attitudes,  par  sa  liaison  avec  la  musique,  la  personne  qui  danse 
^tant  comme  un  instrument  qui  accompagne  ;  mais  surtoClt  elle  plait  par  une 
disposition  de  notre  cerveau,  qui  est  telle  qu'elle  ramene  en  secret  I'idee  de  tous 
les  mouvements  a  de  certains  mouvements,  la  plupart  des  attitudes  a  de  certains 
attitudes."  ^ 

Delicate  people  are  satisfied  with  gentle  dances,  while  coarse 
people  require  them  according  to  their  kind.®  The  Romans 
are  satisfied  with  very  poor  dancing,  which  they  confuse  with 
jumping.^ 

By  relation  to  the  motif  of  surprise,  games  of  chance  pique  us.^ 
This  pleasure  may  be  analyzed  into  the  elements  of  avarice, 
vanity  at  fortune's  preference,  and  curiosity  for  the  spectacle.^ 
The  last  emotion  is  particularly  excited  by  piquet  and  hombre.^*^ 
In  other  games — ^'jeux  folatres'' — our  pleasure  comes  largely 
from  seeing  another  in  a  ludicrous  situation. ^^ 


ii,  349.  2^11,367.  3^11^474  *Cf.  m/,  P- 91-  ^vii,  131. 

^P.  &F.,  II,  79 — referring  to  the  ''danse  de  la  Prevost"  and  the  Camargo 
respectively. 

Woy.,i,21\.     8  VII,  128.  n^ii,  130.  ^Oyii,  146-7. 

^Wii,  45 — All  this  is  from  the  Gout,  though  its  artistic  reference  is  not  immedi- 
ately evident. 


78  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 


CHAPTER   XIV. 
LANDSCAPE— GARDENING. 

His  opinions  on  this  subject  are  naturally  allied  with  his 
sentiment  for  nature.^  He  would  be  catholic  enough  to  appre- 
ciate both  the  art  of  gardens,  and  the  beauty  of  natuml  scenery, 
and  seeks  to  give  reasons  why  each  should  please  us. 

For  the  former,  we  like  "  un  jardin  bien  r6gulier,"  because  it 
gives  the  sense  of  enlargement  to  vision,  of  observing  with  exten- 
sive view,  when  ordinarily  in  towns  our  range  is  so  restricted.^ 
/  Art  aids  us  and  shows  us  a  nature  who  would  conceal  herself. 
Art  is  certainly  better  than  a  hidden  nature.  Yet — when  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  real  thing — 

"Quand  nous  trouvons  de  belles  situations,  quand  notre  vue  en  liberty  pent 
voir  au  loin  des  pr^s,  des  ruisseaux,  des  collines,  et  ces  dispositions  qui  sont,  pour 
ainsi  dire,  crd^es  expr^,  elle  est  bien  autrement  enchant^e  que  lorsqu'elle  voit  les 
jardins  de  Le  Notre."  ^ 

Accordingly  we  like  better  a  landscape  painting  than  the  plan 
of  the  finest  garden  in  the  world. 

Yet  gardens  have  their  beauties,  and  even  regular  gardens.* 
We  prefer  a  good  arrangement  to  a  confusion  of  trees  for  a 
variety  of  reasons :  we  can  see  farther ;  the  unit  is  a  large  alley 
and  not  a  small  tree ;  we  are  grateful  for  the  novelty  of  the 
arrangement,  its  expense,  its  difficulty.^  We  must  combat  nature, 
or  she  would  ruin  everything ;  whence  "  un  jardin  n6glig6  nous 
est  insupportable."  He  dwells,  in  the  Temple  de  Gnide,  on 
enchanted  and  "  delicious  "  gardens.* 

iCf.  swp.,p.  31.  2^1,120-1. 

'vii,  121.  He  speaks  elsewhere  (P.  <fe  i^.,  ii,  78)  of  the  too  great  regularity 
and  sameness  of  Le  Notre. 

*vii,  130.  ^Cf.  swp..  Qualities,  p.  43.  'ii,  16. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  79 

As  to  his  practical  application  of  his  theories,  we  find,  indeed, 
that  he  renovated  La  Brede  largely  according  to  English  ideas, 
without  much  reference  to  Le  Ndtre.^  He  thought  that  it  had 
"  dehors  charmants,"  ^  and  was  one  of  the  most  agreeable  places 
in  France,  since  nature  was  there  freshly  matutinal.^ 

Vian  has  undertaken,  with  some  enterprise,  to  show  that 
Montesquieu  injected  his  qualities  of  mind  into  the  reconstruc- 
tion of  La  Br^de.'*  The  park  speaks  scorn  of  exactitude  and 
symmetry.  It  has  extension,  grand  lines  and  variety  which  seems 
confusion  at  first. 

"La  vari^t^,  I'^l^gance,  la  profondeur,  I'impr^vu,  la  nettet^,  la  vigueur,  toutes 
les  qualites  de  Montesquieu  sont  la." 

Others  have  not  found  them.  Hemon^  observes  that  Montesquieu 
does  not  disregard  order  and  symmetry  in  his  theory;  and 
Brunetiere®  says  simply  that  Vian  abuses  his  prerogatives  as 
biographer. 


1  Vian,  pp.  131-2.  'vii,  271.  y 

'vii,  402.  ^Histoire,  pp.  131-2.  -^ 

^Cours  de  litL,  I,  19.    Yet  Thomas  seems  to  approve — VieUles  Lunes,  p.  123. 

^Bev.  des  deux  mondes,  xxxiii,  220. 


80  The  Aesthetic  Doetrine  of  Montesquieu, 


CHAPTER  XV. 

LITERATURE. 

The  present  chapter,  as  easily  the  most  significant  in  the 
doctrine,  will  naturally  prove  the  longest  in  our  presentation.  Its 
subject-matter  will  be  capable  of  less  condensation  and  abridge- 
ment than  has  heretofore  been  possible.  It  will  require  many 
subdivisions,^  many  analytical  discriminations,  much  dealing  with 
closely  related  questions.  Its  content  forms  a  chief  preoccupation 
with  our  author  and  hence  necessarily  with  ourselves.  It  is  the 
vital  link  between  his  more  general  theory  and  his  written 
application,  the  point  of  departure  for  the  stylist  and  for  his 
critics.  We  cannot  scant  what  one  of  the  four  greatest  of 
eighteenth  century  litterateurs  has  to  say  concerning  literature. 


General  View — Definition,  Value  and  Qualities. 

And  first  the  old  puzzling  question  of  conception,  definition 
and  limitation  comes  imperiously  to  the  front.  If  in  one  place  he 
uses  the  term  very  broadly  as  inclusive  of  "  knowledge  and  the 
sciences,"  ^  in  another  he  is  quick  to  make  a  distinction  between 
literature  and  books.^  We  may  even  see  some  glimmering 
of  a  discrimination  between  the  Literature  of  Power  and  of 
Knowledge  * — which  presents  itself  to  him  partly  as  an  opposition 
of  imagination  vs,  analysis  : 

"Donner  des  images  bien  sensibles  fait  la  force;  donner  des  id^es  tiroes  des 
conceptions  de  I'ame  fait  la  finesse."  ^ 

^  Which  will,  of  course,  largely  correspond  with  those  elaborated  under  Art — 
Book  IL 

^P.&F.,i,  274.     Cited  inf.,  p,  103. 

^  "  Les  ouvrages  qui  ne  sont  point  de  g^nie  ne  prouvent  que  la  memoire  ou  la 
patience  de  I'auteur"  (vii,  177). 

*For  all  this,  cf.  Introduction,  sup.,  p.  8.  ^P.  &  F.,  ii,  13. 


The  Aesthetic  Doetrine  of  Montesquieu.  81 

But  it  is  not  for  him  so  much  a  matter  of  art  against  informa- 
tion as  of  genius  against  everything  else.  Genius  is  the  sine  qua 
non;  and  art  often  spoils  it.  Such  categorical  statement  is 
contained  in  the  following  interesting  passage  : 

*'Les  auteurs  s'usent  toujours  ;  ils  ont  trois  manieres,  comme  lespeintres  :  celle 
de  leur  maitre,  qui  est  celle  du  college  ;  celle  de  leur  genie,  qui  leur  fait  faire  de 
bons  ouvrages  ;  et  celle  de  I'art,  que  I'on  appelle  dans  les  peintres  maniere."  ^ 

Genius  is  then  the  salvation  and  the  specific  difference.  It  is 
distinct  from  esprit,  incapable  of  imitation,  identical  with  invention 
or  creation.^  By  this  is  meant  "total  invention/'  ^  for  Voltaire  was 
a  plagiarist  in  that  he  had  to  be  shown  one  side  of  a  thing,  before 
fully  seeing  it  himself  "^     Genius^  is  furthermore  ordinarily  naif. 

So  much  for  the  divine  fire.  Now  as  to  what  it  should  aim  at, 
which  are  its  qualities  and  its  closer  instruments,  we  detect  a 
certain  hesitation,  the  old  hesitation  between  thought  and  senti- 
ment. There  would  seem  to  be  also  a  tendency  to  favor  the  inser- 
tion of  that  other  known  element  of  amusement,  here  however 
subordinated.^ 

His  remark,  a  propos  of  Florus,  that  "  ce  qui  fait  ordinaireinent 
une  grande  pens^e,  c'est  lorsqu'on  dit  une  chose  qui  en  fait  voir 
un  grand  nombre  d'autres,'' ''  has  often  been  considered  as  giving 
the  core  of  his  literary  ideal.  Certainly  the  principle  finds  able 
exemplification  both  in  his  subsequent  views  on  writing  and  in 
the  cachet  of  his  own  style. ^  The  same  preference  seems  indicated 
in  his  admiration  of  Montaigne  as  the  man  who  thinks,  against 
most  authors  who  only  write.^  The  kind  of  thought  proposed,  as 
indeed  demanded  by  liis  period  and  by  the  character  of  his  mind  '^^ 
is  evidently  "  des  id^es  tirees  des  conceptions  de  I'ame,''  ^^  or  the 
general  idea  : 


^P.  &F.,  11,  17. 

r^.  &F. 

,  n 

,52. 

/Ci.sup.,  p.  51.                             ^P.  &F.,n 
(J^ntitled  here  a  "grand  esprit"— P.  &  F.,  ii, 

;^K  g.,  the  compliment  to  Duclos  (vii,  368)- 
vous  faites  penser." 

Wii,  121.                                           «Cf.  m/,  p. 

,60. 
124. 
-"Vous  6tes  agr^able  a  lire  et 

157  and  p.  196. 

^P.&F,  11,48. 
''P.&F.,n,  14. 

i»Witha 

certain  reserve,  cf. 

sup., 

,  p.  10, 

82  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

"  Un  des  grands  delices  de  1' esprit  des  hommes,  c'est  de  faire  des  propositions 
g^n^rales."  ^ 

But  a  restriction  is  at  once  suggested,  and  still  more  clearly  do 
we  see  a  slur  in  the  statement — itself  tolerably  general — that  there 
is  nothing  in  the  world  on  which  a  man  "  m^diocrement  moral  ne 
puisse  faire  des  speculations."  ^ 

The  cause  of  sentiment  against  generalized  thought  ^  is  prettily 
pleaded  in  connection  with  Boileau  and  a  mot  of  Louis  XII.* 

"Un  (Z«)  roi  de  France  ne  venge  pas  les  injures  d'un  {du)  due  d' Orleans." 

The  first  form  is  a  reflection,  which  anybody  might  make  ;  the 
second  is  a  sentiment,  more  striking  because  it  could  be  uttered 
only  by  that  particular  king  of  France  : — 

"II  n'en  faut  point  faire  une  pens^e  gen^rale.  Ce  qui  frappe  d' admiration 
c'est  lorsque  la  chose  est  dite  par  celui  qui  la  sentait.  .  ." 

For  Boileau,  of  the  corrupted  heart,  he  possesses  "  un  esprit  qui 
ne  sert  pas  assez  bien  le  coeur."  ^ 

Literature  is  clearly  addressed  to  the  soul,  a  soul  compounded 
of  sensibility  and  imagination.^  Our  moral  authors  are  outres  in 
speaking  to  the  pure  reason.     In  modern  times, 

"Chacun  travaille  sur  1' esprit,  et  peu  sur  le  coeur ;  c'est  que  nous  sentons 
mieux  les  nouvelles  connaissances  que  les  nouvelles  perfections  que  nous 
acqu^rons."  "^ 

So  it  is  that  with  our  corrupted  manners,  our  loss  of  natural 
sentiments  and  household  affections,  a  moving  tragedy  may  seem 
laughable,  low  and  "  popular."  ^  Our  ancestors  could  weep  where 
we  deride,  not  because  their  esprit  was  smaller,  but  because  their 
hearts  were  better.     For  himself,  he  is  glad  that  he  can  still  be 

ip.  &  F.,  II,  124.  »P.  i&  F.,  II,  19.  ^cf.  sup.,  p.  42. 

*P.&F.,  II,  51.  ^P.&R,  II,  52. 

«P.  &F.,  II,  297.  Nearly  repeated,  P.  cfeP.,  i,  222— "c'est  des  sens  et  de 
r imagination  qu'il  s'agit  dans  les  ouvrages  d' esprit,"  Mysteries  are  sublime 
rather  "  pour  la  raison." 

'  P.  <fe  P. ,  II,  137,  » P.  <fc  P.,  II,  56-7. 


The  Aesthetic  Dootrine  of  Montesquieu.  83 

touched  by  the  In^  of  La  Motte  and  inspired  for  worthier  living 
by  the  Esope  ci  la  cour  of  Boursault.^ 

The  part  of  imagination  has  just  been  mentioned  as  coextensive 
with  that  of  sentiment.  If  omitted  in  his  list  of  the  qualities/  if 
the  living  in  the  imagining  of  phantom  fears  and  pleasures  is  not 
recommendable,^  yet  poetry  without  this  faculty  is  manqu^e,^  and 
in  images  is  there  force.^  Characteristically  enough,  he  esteems 
that  it  is  "dans  le  monde  "  that  we  learn  how  to  imagine.  "  On 
heurte  tant  de  sujets  dans  les  conversations  que  Pon  imagine  des 
choses."  ^ 

Whatever  his  striking  scorn  of  certain  genres,^  he  has  small 
doubt  concerning  the  usefulness,  value  and  importance  of  literature 
as  a  whole,  whether  considered  as  containing  ouvrages  cV esprit  or 
purely  as  belles-lettres.  We  have  heard  him  claim  at  least  a 
general  utility  for  the  books  oi pur  esprit.^  They  teach  us  the  art 
of  writing  in  all  its  detail  ;^  without  which  many  people  fail,  for 
fault  of  being  able  to  render  an  idea.^*^  He  declares — and  it  is  a 
notable  admission  already  for  the  eighteenth  century — that  "le 
corps  des  sciences  tient  tout  entier  aux  belles-lettres."  The 
sciences  gain  greatly  when  treated  "d'une  maniere  ing^nieuse  et 
delicate;  c'est  par  la  qu'on  ote  la  s^cheresse,  qu'on  pr^vient  la 
lassitude,  et  qu'on  les  met  a  la  portee  de  tous  les  esprits."  This  he 
illustrates  by  the  examples  of  Malebranche  and  Fontenelle.^^ 

In  fugitive  passages  he  avows  his  taste  for  belles-lettres j^"^  his 
hope  that  such  taste  may  become  general,^^  and  dominant  in  the 
life  of  his  friends.^^  He  takes  up  the  cudgels  indeed  for  lighter 
literature,  maintaining  that  not  everything  is  frivolous  merely 
because  it  has  no  present  utility,  observing  that  "  tout  est  li4  et 
tout  se  tient."  ^^     Again  : 


^P.  &F.y  I,  21.  He  still  also  uses  the  word  'sentiment,'  as  a  sensationalist, 
for  the  "  ebranlement "  or  * '  chatouillement "  of  the  ends  of  fibres.  "  Cela  soffit 
pour  expliquer  tout." — P.  cfe  F.,  ii,  477. 

2Cf.  inf.,  p.  86.         3 1,  189,  453.         ^ P.  &  R,  ii,  15.         ^P.  &  R,  ii,  13. 

«P.  <fe  P.,  II,  11.       'E.  g.,  Poetry.    See  inf.,  p.  106. 

8 Quoted  sup.,  p.  26.  ^Quoted  inf.,  p.  86. 

1°  VII,  81.  "VII,  81-2.  '^yu,l. 

13  vn,  419.  "vn,  451.  ^'^P.  &  R,  i,  277. 


84  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

**Ce  ne  sont  pas  seulement  les  lectures  sdrieuses  qui  sont  utiles,  mais  aussi  les 
agr&ibles,  y  ayant  un  temps  oil  on  a  besoin  d'un  d^lassement  honn^te.  .  .  II  est 
done  bon  que  Ton  derive  sur  tous  les  sujets  et  de  tous  les  styles."  ^ 

Yet  in  a  historical  survey  which  he  takes  of  the  subject,^  he 
holds  first  that  literature  is  more  than  an  amusement.  Its 
prosperity  is  linked  with  that  of  empires,  as  sign  or  cause. 
Europe  is  more  powerful  and  concomitantly  more  enlightened  than 
the  rest  of  the  world.  In  Europe,  the  states  where  letters  are  the 
most  cultivated  are  the  strongest.^    And  for  further  specification — 

"Si  nous  ne  jetons  les  yeux  que  sur  notre  France,  nous  verrons  les  lettres 
naitre  ou  s'ensevelir  avec  sa  gloire,  donner  une  lueur  sombre  sous  Charlemagne, 
et  puis  s'^teindre  ;  reparaitre  sous  Fran9ois  I^''  et  suivre  I'^clat  de  notre  monarchie. 
Et,  si  nous  nous  bornons  au  grand  r^gne  de  Louis  XIV,  nous  verrons  que,  le  temps 
de  ce  regne  o^  la  prosp^rit^  fut  plus  grande,  le  suce^  des  lettres  le  fut  aussi." 

So  the  arts  rose  and  fell  with  the  power  of  the  Roman  Empire ; 
and  so  the  sciences  flourished,  in  the  empire  of  the  caliphs,  with 
the  great  family  of  Abbas.  Among  the  Turks,  their  ignorance 
alone  can  equal  their  feebleness.  By  ignorance  the  kingdoms  of 
Peru  and  Mexico  perished.  At  which  point,  Montesquieu  drifts 
into  a  defence  of  science.  But  returning  shortly  to  the  linking  of 
letters  and  empires,  he  deems  that  the  prosperity  of  each  causes 
per  se  its  fall — by  reason  of  the  pendulum  tendency  of  things.* 

This  connection  is  broadly  that  of  milieu  and  he  elsewhere 
makes  more  definitely  that  point.  Literature  is  at  its  best  only  in 
the  beginning  of  monarchies,  a  later  general  corruption  "  affectant 
encore  cette  partie-l^.'^  ^  Manners  are  a  potent  influence.  It  was 
partly  because  the  French  of  old  had  difierent  manners  that  they 
were  more  moved  by  tragedy.®  For  a  new  drama,  we  need  "une 
nouvelle  langue,  de  nouvelles  moeurs,  de  nouvelles  circonstances," 
a  new  nation,  in  short,  "  qui  m^le  aux  caract^res  des  hommes  ses 
propres  moeurs.' '  ^  Inverting  the  relation,  he  has  even  the 
Culturgeschichte  idea  of  studying  the  Chinese  theatre  to  learn  the 
"  manners  of  the  country.'^  ^  He  will  take  the  first  viewpoint 
demanded  by  a  recognition  of  milieu.     To  judge  of  Homer  one 

ip.  <fc  F.,  I,  388.  ^P.  &F.,i,  274-5.  ^cf.  on  Art,  mp.,  p.  25. 

*P.  &  R,  I,  278.  ^P.  &  K,  II,  28.  «P.  &  P.,  ii,  57. 

'  P.  <fe  P.,  II,  20-1.  sp.  &  P.,  II,  35, 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  85 

must  live  in  the  camp  of  the  Greeks  and  not  in  a  French  army.^ 
We  must  indeed  find  the  old  passions  "  sur  un  fouds  nouveau/' 
before  we  can  take  pleasure  in  viewing  the  representation  of  the 
manners  of  a  barbaric  people/  But  it  is  better  to  heal-  the  vizier 
Acomat  speak  of  his  way  of  loving  than  a  ^-  Bajazet  naturalist 
franyais."  ^ 

He  shows  evidence  of  some  cosmopolitanism  and  much  tolerance. 
There  is  a  Eepublic  of  Letters,^  and — 

' '  Les  honnetes  gens,  les  gens  de  lettres,  sont  de  toutes  les  nations,  et  tous  les 
honn^tes  gens  de  toutes  les  nations  sont  leur  compatriotes."  ^ 

Accordingly,  in  a  spirit  of  brotherhood,  he  will  seek  for  the  best 
in  Chinese  dramatists/  and  attributes  to  English  authors 
generosity  and  a  better  knowledge  of  their  own  books  than  the 
French  can  have.^  He  goes  into  the  future,  with  this  broad 
spirit,  and  sees  the  cyles — or  the  spirals — of  productiveness  : — 

"II  viendra  un  peuple  qui  sera,  a  notre  ^gard,  ce  que  nous  sommes  ^  I'^gard 
des  Grecs  et  cles  Komains.  .  .  Les  auteurs  prendront  dans  la  nature  ce  que  nous 
y  avons  dej^  pris,  ou  dans  nos  auteurs  m6mes,  et  bientdt  ils  s'dpuiseront  comme 
nous  nous  sommes  epuises."  ^ 

There  is  a  great  tolerance,^  too,  especially  for  him,  in  the 
statement  that  we  must  not  criticise  poets  for  the  faults  of  poetry, 
nor  metaphysicians  for  the  difficulties  of  metaphysics.^  The 
method  is  still  to  allow  the  genre.  It  is  good  to  write  on  all 
subjects  and  in  all  styles. ^"^     Furthermore  : 

"  Je  dirai  qu'il  y  a  plusieurs  sources  de  beaute  par  rapport  aux  ouvrages 
d' esprit,  qu'il  faut  bien  distinguer,  et  qu'il  ne  faut  point  faire  dependre  une 
pens^e  d'un  genre  de  beaute  lorsque'elle  depend  d'un  autre."  ^^ 

He  would  make  three  principal  divisions  in  the  kinds  of  subjects, 
consisting  respectively  in  reasoning,  depiction,  or  the  expression  of 
passion.     In  each  of  the  three,  the  method  and  the  style  should 

'P.&F.,i,  228.  2  p  ^  p^  j^  229.  ^  Cf .  inf.,  p.  101. 

*vii,  448.  -   ^P.  &  F.,  II,  34-5.  «vii,  442. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  20.  Cf.  my  note  on  classicism,  sup.,  p.  49.  ^Cf.  sup.,  p.  10. 

sp.  <fe  i^.,  II,  27.  10  Quoted  sup.,  p.  84.  "P.  &  F,  ii,  42. 


86  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Mordesquieu. 

vary.^     He  evinces  then  the  same  catholicity  for  kinds  that  he 
has  shown  in  regard  to  nations. 

Proceeding  to  strain  the  qualities  of  good  writing,  we  have  seen 
that  he  demands  both  thought  and  sentiment.  He  praises 
Bonnet's  book,  because  "  vous  nous  menez  d' observation  en 
observation."  ^  The  two  great  desiderata  are,  we  gather,  "  cette 
force  de  g^nie  qui  saisit  tout  un  sujef  and  "cette  perspicacity 
g^ometrique  qui  le  p6n6tre."  ^  The  more  specific  qualities  in 
presentation,  are  thus  listed : 

"  Nous  apprenons  dans  les  livres  de  pur  esprit  Tart  d'^crire,  I'art  de  rendre  nos 
id^es,  de  les  exprimer  noblement,  vivement,  avec  force,  avec  grflce,  avec  ordre 
et  avec  cette  vari^te  qui  delasse  1' esprit."  * 

Several  of  these  are  old  friends.^  Other  such  are  the  sentiment 
of  surprise,  for  which  alone  we  ordinarily  read ;  ^  ncCivet^j  which 
should  mark  genius  and  epigrams  ;  ^  curiosity,  "  principe  du 
plaisir  que  Ton  trouve  dans  les  ouvrages  d'esprit ;  "  *  sidte^  or  a 
"chaine  secrete  et  en  quelque  facon  inconnue,"  which  may  link 
personages  or  different  subjects.^  And  one  may  add  his  statement 
that  the  best  writers,  generous  of  these  and  other  satisfactions, 
"  sont  ceux  qui  out  excite  dans  Pame  plus  de  sensations  en  m6me 
temps."  ^« 

Other  points  in  general  literary  theory  may  be  briefly  men- 
tioned. Montesquieu  is  no  believer  in  gross  fecundity,  praising 
Fontenelle  ^^  and  English  writers  ^^  for  abstinence  in  production. 
He  has  no  points  of  sympathy  with  later  theorists  who  declare  the 
subject,  in  writing,  to  be  of  little  or  no  importance.  There  are 
certain  subjects — for  example  satires  on  women  '^ — which  are 
worthless,  and  a  really  excellent  author,  such  as  Horace,  will  not 
touch   them.     Events   spring  from   the  subject,  in  the   case  of 


^P.  &  F,^  II,  45. — "Les  choses  dent  le  sujet  consiste  dans  le  raisonnement ; 
celles  dont  le  sujet  consiste  dans  la  peinture,  comme  est  par  exemple,  la  po&ie  en 
g^n^ral ;  celles,  enfin  dont  le  sujet  consiste  a  exprimer  1' agitation  des  passions." 

2  VII,  425.  3yjj   30.  *  VII,  81. 

^Cf.,  under  Art,  stip.,  p.  35.     «vii,  129.  'P.  &F.,  ii,  22. 

8P.  <fe  P.,  II,  122.  »i,  47-8.  ^0  vii,  130. 

"VII,  445.  12  p.  ^  p^  jj^  18,  IS  p.  ^p.^  11^  52. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  87 

Horner.^     "II  faut  toujours  prendre  un  bon  sujet;''  good  things 
are  wasted  on  a  poor  subject.^ 

For  literary  ^  psychology/  something  has  already  been  said.^ 
He  may  be  approaching  the  notion  in  his  consideration  of  that 
finesse,  which  is  '^  to  give  ideas  drawn  from  the  conceptions  of  the 
soul."  *  He  approaches  it  more  nearly  in  holding  that,  since  the 
great  dramatists  have  exhausted  the  great  types,  "  il  ne  nous  reste 
plus  que  les  caract^res  fins,  ceux  qui  ^chappent  aux  esprits  de 
commun."  ^  Character-drawing  indeed  he  considers  largely  a 
matter  of  types,  of  generalizing  so  far  as  may  be  possible.  Even 
a  La  Bruyere  "  doit  toujours  faire  des  tableaux,  et  non  pas  des 
portraits  ;  peindre  des  hommes,  et  non  pas  un  homme  "  ^ — at  least 
not  an  actual  man.  The  thing  presents  itself  to  our  author  rather 
as  a  question  of  loosely  grouping  like  characters,  of  finding  a 
greatest  common  denominator,  than  as  the  finer  process  of  taking 
the  obtained  type  and  deducing  therefrom,  differentiating,  exhibit- 
ing the  peculiar  individual.  The  remark  that  a  Turk  must  see, 
think  and  speak  as  a  Turk,  not  as  a  Christian,^  may  partly 
protect  the  Lettres  persanes,  may  even  indicate  a  desired  objectivity 
in  portraiture,  but  hardly  gives  prevision  of  the  niceties  of  detailed 
and  specialized  delineation.^ 


Eelations — The    Influence  of   the   Salon  and 
Woman — Esprit. 

In  speaking  of  the  epistolary  style,  Montesquieu  remarks  that 
it  passed  from  the  hands  of  pedants  with  Yoiture  who  added 
finesse  and  a  certain  affectation  "  qui  se  trouve  toujours  dans  le 
passage  de  la  pedanterie  a  Fair  et  au  ton  du  monde."  ^  The 
recognition  that  literature  had,  so  to  speak,  changed  its  base,  finds 
a  fuller  expression  in  his  reflections  on  reading  Ronsard : 

^P.&F.,  n,  36. 

^P.  &F.,  II,  10;  cf.  VII,  390.     But  just  above  (p.  84)  lie  has  admitted  'all 


3  Cf .  sup.,  p.  28.  *P.  &  F.,  II,  14.  sp.  &  F.,  II,  21. 

«P.  &F.,  II,  24-5.  Ti^4g. 

«Cf.,  under  Application,  in/.,  p.  190.  «P.  &  P.,  n,  49. 


88  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

"Du  temps  de  Francois  1^"^,  c'^tait  les  savants  qui  faisaient  la  reputation  des 
auteurs ;  aujourd'hui,  ce  sont  les  femmes.  Ronsard  est  la  preuve  de  ceci.  On 
ne  pent  plus  le  lire,  quoique  personne  n'ait  eu  plus  de  rdputation."  * 

It  would  be  desirable  for  savants,  if  in  writing  they  could  learn 
this  "jargon  des  femmes/'  But  they  know  all  languages  except 
that.2 

The  talent  which  pleases  women  most,  that  of  "  badinage  dans 
I'esprit/'  has  passed  from  the  toilette  to  all  fields,  and  now  well- 
nigh  seems  to  form  the  general  character  of  the  nation.^  By  the 
use  of  this,  of  esprit  *  above  all,  of  freedom  in  manners,  progression 
in  grace ;  ^  by  the  flowering  of  imagination  "  dans  le  monde,''  ® 
by  imaginative  cravings  in  fair  hearers  for  sottises ;  ^  especially  by 
feminine  taste,  which  finds  specialism  and  high  intelligence 
ridiculous,  and  forces  all  into  the  consideration  only  of  general 
objects :  ^  thereby  have  women  won  to-day  their  empire  over  the 
thoughts  and  language  of  men  as  found  in  books.^ 

The  transition  from  this  influence  to  that  of  conversation  is 
easy.  "  Plaire  dans  une  conversation  vaine  et  frivole  est  aujour- 
d'hui le  seul  m6rite."  ^^  For  the  most  talkative  nation  is  that  where 
women  give  the  tone,"  and  surely  the  French  are  talkative.^^  We 
flee — even  to  ouvrages  d^esprit ! — from  insipid  and  lauguishing 
conversations.^^  Montesquieu  considers  them  ordinarily  as  good 
for  others ;  he  would  rather  approve  than  listen  ;  he  is  pleased  to 
find  a  man  who  will  take  pains  to  shine,  for  such  a  one  is  then 
exposed.^''  Yet,  to  analyze  the  matter,  we  are  wearied  if  conversa- 
tions become  uniform,  if  lazy  people  let  everything  fall.^*  For 
harmony's  sake,  "  il  ne  faut  pas  se  croiser  sans  cesse  .  .  .  il  faut 
marcher  ensemble.''  ^^  Conversation  is  "  un  ouvrage  que  I'on 
construit,"  there  must  be  no  disarrangements,  no  disagreeableness, 

^P.&F.,  II,  31.  ^P.&F.,  II,  156.  =^i,  216. 

*P.  (fe  F.,  II,  146,  150.  ^P.  &  F.,  n,  150.  ep.  &  F,  ii,  10. 

'P.  &  F,  n,  147.  8P.  <fe  P.,  II,  33. 

*  II,  382.  His  development  of  this  is  more  in  actual  living  and  in  practice  than 
in  precept.  Cf.  under  Application,  inf.,  p.  186  ;  and  for  his  relations  with  Mmes. 
Geoffrin,  Tencin,  du  Deffand  et  al.,  cf.  Lettres,  passim;  Vian,  192-6,  273-4. 

10 VII,  178.  lip.  <feP.,  II,  157. 

12 Barckhausen  ed.,  i.  P.,  p.  295.  i'  vii,  129. 

1*  VII,  152.  15  P.  &  P.,  II,  133.  16 P.  &  P.,  II,  302. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  89 

no  demolishing  spirits,  who  go  off  on  side-issues  and  plague  with 
minutiae  and  hinder  everything. 

Talking,  in  turn^  is  naturally  associated  with  esprit,  and  he  thus 
expounds  the  relation  ^ — 

''L' esprit  de  conversation  est  ce  qu'on  appelle  de  I'esprt^  parmi  les  Franpais. 
II  consiste  a  (sic)  un  dialogue  ordinairement  gai,  dans  lequel  chacun,  sans 
s'ecouter  beaucoup,  parle  et  r^pond,  et  ou  tout  se  traite  d'une  maniere  couple, 
prompte  et  vive.  Le  style  et  le  ton  de  la  conversation  s'apprennent,  c'est-a-dire 
le  style  de  dialogue.  II  y  a  des  nations  oil  1' esprit  de  convei'sation  est  entierement 
inconuu. .  . 

"Ce  qu'on  appelle  esprit  chez  les  Fran^ais  n' est  done  pas  de  1' esprit,  mais  un 
genre  particulier  d' esprit.  L' esprit,  en  lui-m^me,  est  le  bon  sens  joint  a  la 
lumi^re."  ^ 

Again,  the  esprit  of  conversation  is  an  "  esprit  particulier,  qui 
consiste  dans  des  raisonnements  et  des  d^raisonnements  courts.''  ^ 
The  quality  is  closely  linked  with  literature,  since  the  fury  of 
Frenchmen  is  to  have  esprit^  "  et  la  fureur  de  ceux  qui  veulent 
avoir  de  V esprit  c'est  de  faire  des  livres."  ^ 

He  further  distinguishes  between  the  greater  and  the  lesser 
variety,  intelligence  and  wit.  The  first  espHt  includes  several 
kinds,  such  as  genius,  good  sense  and  taste,  and  consists  broadly 
in  having  ^^  les  organes  bien  constitu^s,  relativement  aux  choses  oxi 
il  s' applique."  ^  There  are  the  two  classes  of  men,  those  who 
think  and  those  who  amuse  themselves.^  There  is  the  difference 
between  saying  a  truth  and  a  hon  motj  There  is  a  clear 
distinction,  in  fine,  between  ^'  un  homme  d' esprit  et  un  bel  esprit."  * 
And,  with  particular  reference  to  Voltaire  : 

' '  Le  bon  esprit  vaut  mieux  que  le  bel  esprit. "  ^ 

It  is  the  second  specialized  sense  of  the  word  with  which  we 
are  concerned,  which  was  indeed  with  Montesquieu  a  subject  of 
perennial  interest  and  almost  a  continual  preoccupation.     He  is 

^In  continuance  of  the  disquisition  just  given.  ^ P.  &  F.,  ii,  302-3. 

3  P.  &  F.,  II,  11.  *i,  223.  5yii^  119. 

^P.  &  F.,  II,  124.    Cf.  sup.,  p.  22,  where  the  reflexive  pronoun  is  omitted. 
'P.  &F.,  II,  13.  sp.  &  F,  II,  126. 

'  vn,  419.  He  esteems  the  esprit  of  that  writer  as  "  un  vice  de  plus." — P.  <fe  P., 
II,  50. 


90  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

perpetually  judging  people  by  their  possession  or  lack  of  this 
quality.^  That  is  the  first  thing  which  it  instinctively  occurs  to 
him  to  say.  On  the  occasion  of  Chesterfield's  practical  joke, 
Montesquieu  is  said  to  have  been  arguing  the  superiority  of  the 
French  esprit}     It  is  a  principal  attribute  of  modern  times.^ 

Yet  formally  he  has  much  to  plead  against  any  wholesale 
admiration  of  this  treacherous  gift. 

It  should  not  be  too  much  intermixed  with  irony  ^  or  vinegar  ;  ^ 
it  is  often  disdainful  in  excess/  and  has  little  relation  to  real 
genius ;  ^  abandonment  to  it  is  dangerous  ;  *  ^'  les  petits  beaux- 
esprits "  meet  with  his  condemnation.^  Nor  can  he  altogether 
approve  such  allied  forms  of  wit  as  repartee,  raillery  and 
licentiousness. 

The  first  is  a  product,  not  of  judgment,  but  only  of  vivacity ;  ^" 
badinage,  however  universal,  is  but  a  vain  and  frivolous  thing." 
The  second  is  "  un  discours  en  faveur  de  son  esprit  contre  son  bon 
naturel."  ^^  We  rail  at  everything,  "  parce  que  tout^  un  revers.^'  ^^ 
But  thin  partitions  do  the  bounds  divide  between  a  railleur  de 
profession  and  a  fool  or  an  impertinent.^*  There  are  rules  for 
raillery ;  to  wit,  that  it  should  touch  on  slight  points,  and  should 
never  be  continuous  or  too  personal  : 

"Enfin,  il  faut  avoir  pour  but  de  faire  rire  celui  qu'on  raille,  et  non  pas  un 
tiers." 

Thus  he  takes  his  stand  by  the  celebrated  definition  of  humor. 
For  the  Frenchman,  genuine  wit  will  find  its  justification  only  in 
its  tact  and  its  timeliness.  SailUes  three-fourths  of  the  time,  are 
hors  de  saison}^  The  ridiculous,  defined  as  "une  chose  qui  ne 
s'accorde  pas  aux  mani^res  et  aux  actions  ordinaires  de  la  vie,"  ^^ 
is,  like  esp7it  itself,  for  its  pleasing  eifect,^^  entirely  a  relative 
matter  : 


1 VII,  225-6,  246,  etc.  ^See  Besenval,  Mem.  i,  133-5.    ^P.  &  R,  ii,  127. 

*P.  &  F.,  n,  14.  ''P.  &  F.,  II,  17.        «P.  &  F,  n,  27,  cf.  ibid.,  111. 

'P.  &F,i,  225 ,  P.&F,  II,  52.  sp.  &  P.,  ii,  46. 

9vn,  154.  ^^P.  &  P.,  II,  125.  "  vn,  178. 

"P.  &  P.,  II,  100.  ''P.  &  P.,  II,  303.  '*P.  &  P.,  I,  409. 

"3fa  in.,  136.  ^«P.  &  P.,  II,  134.  ^^P.  &  P.,  ii,  126. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  91 

"II  est  aise  de  sentir  en  g^n^ral  ce  qui  est  ridicule;  mais  on  a  le  tact  fin 
lorsqu'on  sent  ce  qui  est  ridicule  Id,  c'est-a-dire  devant  chaque  soci^te  et  devant 
chaque  personne."  ^ 

The  value  of  esprit,  in  the  long  run,  lies  in  its  sympathetic 
appeal — "  que  cet  esprit  s'allie  avec  les  autres  esprits."  ^  This 
may  be  his  humeur,  which  he  finally  calls  the  "passion  de 
Fesprit."  ^  The  French  are  wrong  in  confusing  what  the  English 
variously  term  "  wit,  humour,  sense,  understanding/'  ^  This 
humor,  so  distinct  from  esprit,^  is  also  distinct  from  plaisanterie — 

"  C'est  plutot  le  plaisant  de  la  plaisanterie.  Ce  n'est  point  la  force  comique,  le 
vis  comica  ;  c'est  plutdt  la  maniere  de  la  force  comique.  Je  la  d^finerai,  dans  la 
plaisanterie,  la  maniere  de  rendre  plaisamment  les  clioses  plaisantes,  et  c'est  le 
sublime  de  I'humeur  .  .  .  ce  que  les  images  sont  dans  la  po^sie,  I'humeur  est  dans 
la  plaisanterie."  ^ 

He  allows  then  kindly  humor.     He  allows  too  that  gaiety  which 
charges  itself  with  the  public  joy/ 

As  to  the  salacious  wit,  it  is  a  thing  which  theoretically  he 
rejects.  "  Je  n'aime  pas  les  bons  mots  grivois."  ^  Whatever 
cannot  be  said  before  women  is  '^bas  et  obscene.''  ^  In  detail,  he 
admits  that  if  a  censorship  on  such  a  basis  were  made  very  rigid, 
the  ancients  would  come  to  us  much  mutilated  ...  as  also  the 
moderns.^^  All  the  same,  he  would  recommend  such  writers  as 
Marivaux,  of  "  admirables  moeurs  ; ''  ^^  he  can  take  no  joy  in  the 
frank  Rabelais  ;  ^^  and  at  Paphos  he  distinguishes  between  gallantry 
and  grossness,  ruling  out  the  books  of  the  latter  class.^^  He  would 
defend  the  Temple  de  Gnide  ^*  on  the  ground  that,  dangerous  as  it 
may  be,  it  has  only  the  fault  of  its  whole  class  of  romans,  which 
are  dangerous  doubtless,  but  not  more  so  than  other  things.  True, 
it  is  vicious  to  put  licentious  things  into  poetry.  "  Mais  ordonner 
de  n'avoir  pas  de  sentiments  a  un  ^tre  toujours  sensible ;  vouloir 
bannir  les  passions  sans  souffrir  meme  qu'on  les  justifie  " — is  to 
take  too  high  and  speculative  ground,  in  a  century  which  is  very 
bad  and  is  growing  worse. 

ip.  &  R,  II,  129.  ^P.  &F.,i,  215 ;  cf.  inf.,  under  Authors,  p.  97. 

3P.  &  F.,  II,  125.  4  His  English,  P.  &  F.,  ii,  8.         ^P.  &  F,  n,  14. 

«P.  &  F,  II,  15.  'P.  &  F,  II,  303.  8P.  &F,  I,  17. 

»P.  &  F,  II,  303.  lop.  &  F,  II,  29.  ^ip.  &  F,  ii,  61. 

"P.  &  P.,  II,  47.  13  VII,  468.  i*P.  &  F,  I,  34-5. 


92  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Mmitesquieu, 

To  return,  the  characteristics  of  esprit  in  general  are  partly  his 
old  notions  of  naivete  ^  and  relativity.^  Its  possession  is  a  thing 
difficult  to  establish,  particularly  for  women.  The  real  quality 
does  not  seek  to  display  itself,  though  ^'on  n^est  jamais  bel-esprit^ 
quand  on  ne  pretend  pas  de  P^tre."  Those  who  try  too  hard  fall 
and  become  sots}  "  Quand  on  court  apr5s  Pesprit,  on  attrape  la 
sottise."  ^  In  the  opinion  of  the  gens  du  monde,  "  I'esprit  con- 
siste  a  rapprocher  les  id^es  les  plus  6loign6es."  ^ 

Here  may  well  find  place  the  amusing  skit  ^  on  the  wit  without 
honor,  who  agreed  with  his  friend  that  they  should  mutually  set 
off  each  others  sallies.  "  Travaillons  de  concert  a  nous  donner  de 
Pesprit."  By  careful  study  and  preparation,  by  admiring  and 
supporting  each  other  in  public,  they  should  finally  be  able  to 
keep  up  a  running  fire  of  bons  mots  for  an  hour  and  reach  the 
Academy  at  last : — 

''Tu  verras  que  nous  donnerons  le  ton  a  toutes  les  conrersations,  et  qu'on 
admirera  la  vivacity  de  notre  esprit,  et  le  bonheur  de  nos  reparties.  .  .  Tu 
brilleras  aujourd' liui,  demain  tu  seras  mon  second.  .  .  Tu  seras  homme  d' esprit 
malgr^  que  tu  en  aies." 

For  his  own  esprity  Montesquieu  does  not  care  to  shine,^  nor  is 
he  touched  by  the  reputation  of  fine  wit.^  He  never  tried  to 
appear  such.  In  the  world,  he  says,  he  was  announced  as  an 
homme  d^esprit,  and  perhaps  proved  the  accusation  by  the  Lettres 
persanes — none  too  happily  for  his  peace  of  mind.  "Dans  les 
occasions,  mon  esprit,  comme  s'il  avait  fait  un  effort,  s'en  tirait 
assez  bien."  ^^  After  which,  he  proceeds  to  quote  a  number  of  his 
hons  mots}^  Indeed  we  feel  that  many  of  the  foregoing  remarks 
on  the  subject  are  offered  somewhat  as  samples  of  his  own 
proficiency. 

ip.  &F.yiiy  124.  ^P.  &  F.,  II,  126.  3  Tjjg  distinction  is  in  the  bd. 

*P.  &  F.,  n,  127.  ^P.  iSc  F,  ii,  128.  ^Mel.  in.,  136. 

'i.  P.,  I,  191-4. 

^  "  J'aime  les  maisons  ou  je  puis  me  tirer  d' affaire  avec  mon  esprit  de  tons  les 
jours,"  VII,  152. 
»vn,  154.  1°  VII,  156. 

^^  Also  P.  &  F.,  passim. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  93 


Books  and  Authors. 

It  is  doubtful  if  any  author  of  renown  has  passed  so  sweeping 
a  condemnation  upon  books  and  their  producers  as  has  Montes- 
quieu in  some  dozen  pages  of  the  Lettres  jjersanes}  For  several 
days  he  sends  his  mouthpiece,  Rica,  to  visit  a  library — a  vast  and 
discouraging  mass  known  not  even  to  its  keeper — and  each  day 
we  have  the  sarcastic  demolition  of  a  new  genre ^  history  alone 
escaping  the  fire.  Further  on,  in  the  same  volume,^  he  con- 
temptuously prescribes  various  books,  from  Aristotle  to  the  newest 
novels,  as  medicinal  doses,  purgatives,  vomitives  and  the  like. 

His  opinion  elsewhere  is  no  less  categorically  expressed.  "A 
quoi  bon,''  cries  the  fertile  President,  "  a  quoi  bon  faire  des  livres 
pour  cette  petite  terre  ? ''  ^  In  most  books,  where  size  is  the  chief 
object,  we  are  half-drowned  in  a  sea  of  words,  and  amplification 
is  the  reader^ s  ruin.*  Usbek  himself  could  do  as  well,  if  he  cared 
to  ruin  his  health  and  the  bookstores.  Our  productions  serve 
only  to  immortalize  our  sottises,  which  otherwise  would  die  with 
us.^  Such  expressions  may  well  be  assigned  to  the  hyperbolical 
side  of  the  Gascon,  but  he  loses  his  jocoseness  in  stating  that — 

''la  plus  mauvaise  copie  de  I'homme  est  celle  qui  se  trouve  dans  les  livres,  qui 
sont  un  amas  de  propositions  g^nerales,  presque  toujours  fausses."  ^ 

Among  which  falsities  there  might  be  instanced  his,  that  books 
always  show  men  as  better  than  they  are.'' 

Yet  he  distinguishes  clearly  enough  between  good  and  bad 
books,  as  we  have  seen  him  distinguish  between  books  and 
literature  : — 

"  Les  ouvrages  qui  ne  sont  point  de  genie  ne  prouvent  que  la  m^moire  ou  la 
patience  de  Fauteur."  ^ 

Books  are  a  kind  of  society,  and  according  as  one  chooses  good  or 
poor  company,  so  he  improves  or  wastes  his  time.^     There  are  also 

*  I,  414-27.     The  detail  of  this  will  be  presented  later  under  the  different  forms. 
'1,456-7.  '^  VII,  172.  *i,  342.  ^  j^  223. 

«P.  &F.,i,  281.     But  cf.  mp.,  p.  82.  '  vii,  174.  »  vii,  177. 

ma,  in.,  143. 


94  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

the  most  dangerous  class,  the  "ouvrages  coramuns,"  which  are 
tiresome — "les  mauvais,  od  ne  les  compte  pas.''^  He  has  read^ — 
or  will  read^ — only  the  best  books.  The  chief  merit  of  new 
works  is  that  by  them  one  may  judge  the  public  which  reads 
them.^    Again  : — 

"  II  me  semble  que,  jusqu'il  ce  qu'un  homme  ait  lu  tous  les  livres  anciens,  il 
n'a  aucune  raison  de  lenr  pr^ferer  les  nouveaux."  * 

It  is  fortunate,  at  any  rate,  that  not  all  works  are  laborious,  and 
some  spring,  like  Pallas,  painlessly  from  the  head  of  Jupiter.^ 

Among  the  kinds  of  books  which  he  especially  despises  are 
imitations,  commentaries,  compilations,  translations,  etc.  The 
great  original  work,  wherein  the  author  has  not  lowered  himself 
to  the  quality  of  a  copyist,^  is  the  only  thing  worth  while.  Such 
a  work  usually  causes  the  construction  of  five  or  six  hundred 
others,  "  ces  derniers  se  servant  du  premier  a  peu  prds  comme  les 
g^om^tres  se  servent  de  leurs  formules."  ^  As  a  result  of  imitation, 
the  literary  jealousy  may  arise, — "  On  s'efforce  5,  imiter  ceux  qui 
ont  su  plaire  ;  P  imitation  ne  r^ussit  pas,  Pamour-propre  s'en 
offense."  ^  Parody,  in  particular,  is  the  refuge  of  mediocre 
minds.^ 

It  is,  however,  true  that  imitation  has  been  known  among  the 
best  authors.  As  Tasso  imitated  Virgil,  so  Virgil  imitated 
Homer,  and  Homer  probably  some  one  else.^"  It  does  not  take  a 
very  strong  mind  to  make  the  accusation  of  plagiarism." 
According  to  small  souls,  there  are  no  more  original  authors ; 
Descartes  drew  all  of  his  philosophy  from  the  ancients ;  Euclid, 
Horace  or  Theocritus  have  said  it  all.  In  derision  of  which, 
Montesquieu  proposes : 

"  Je  m' engage  de  trourer  dans  Cardan  les  pens^es  de  quelque  auteur  que  ce 
soit,  meme  le  moins  subtil." 

Collections,  recueilsy  are  not  infrequently  detestable.  ^^  Compilers 
meet  with  his  highest  scorn,  those  people  who  gather  patches  from 

ip.  &  K,  II,  18.  2vji^  163^  zp  &F.,i,  33.  *i,  343. 

5  VII,  23,  cf.  sup.,  p.  43.      «P.  &  P.,  II,  11.       "^P.  &  P.,  II,  17.      »  vii,  478. 

lip.  &  F. ,  II,  11.      ''P.  &  P.,  II,  65. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  95 

others  to  paste  in  their  own  worksJ  "  Je  voudrais  qu'on  respectat 
les  livres  originaux.''  It  seems  profanation  to  draw  good  things 
from  their  sanctuary  to  expose  them  to  an  unmerited  mepris  by 
reason  of  their  association. 

He  speaks  of  the  "  arm^e  effroyable  de  glossateurs,  de  commen- 
tateurs,  de  compilateurs/'  weak  in  intelligence  as  they  are  strong 
in  numbers ;  ^  of  these  same  grammarians,  glossers  and  commen- 
tators, who  can  fortunately  dispense  with  the  use  of  bon  sens.^ 
The  commentators,  indeed,  have  a  special  place  in  Rica's 
iconoclastic  review.  They  seek  in  Scripture  not  what  should  be 
believed,  but  what  they  want  to  believe.*  Hence  they  corrupt 
meanings  and  twist  passages,  making  the  Bible  like  a  battle-field. 
They  augment  or  abridge  their  authors  at  will.^  A  man  like 
Coste  comes  to  believe  that  he  has  made  Montaigne,  and  blushes 
with  pleasure  when  the  essayist  is  praised.^ 

Dictionaries,  too,  for  living  languages  at  least,  are  bad  and 
restricted  things.'^  The  Academy  itself  has  produced  or  caused 
^^  satires  n^ologiques^  The  Academy  dictionary  he  humorously 
calls  almost  old  when  it  was  born  ;  ^  *^  un  batard,^  qui  avait  d^ja 
paru,  Favait  presque  etouif^  dans  sa  naissance." 

Translations  are  railed  at  by  the  geometer  of  the  Lettres 
persanes}^  He  cannot  understand  that  a  man  may  put  twenty 
years  on  a  translation  of  Horace,  twenty  years  without  original 
thought,  a  life-time  of  merely  speaking  for  others.  The  savant 
who  is  attacked  objects  that  he  renders  a  great  service  to  the 
public  in  familiarising  good  authors.  The  other  returns  that  he 
also  esteems  "  les  sublimes  g^nies  que  vous  travestissez,"  but  the 
translator  is  quite  unlike  them — he  may  translate  them,  but  no  one 
will  ever  translate  him.     In  general : 

"Les  traductions  sont  comme  ces  monnaies  de  cuivre  qui  ont  bien  la  meme 
valeurqu'une  piece  d'or,  et  meme  sont  d'un  plus  grand  usage  pour  le  peuple  ; 
mais  elles  sont  toujours  faibles  et  d'un  mauvais  aloi." 


1 1,  323-4.  2j^3i9^  3  1^419,  *i,  416-7. 

^P.  iScF.,  II,  19. 

«P.  <fe  P.,  II,  62.  A  commentator  is  called  ''  barbare,"  i,  53. 

'P.  &  P.,  II,  8.  ^1,  247.  9 That  of  Fureti^re.  »oi,  398. 


96  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

In  resurrecting  the  illustrious  dead,  the  savant  gives  them  a 
body  without  life,  without  spirit. 

But  Montesquieu  himself,  while  doubtful  as  to  just  what  a 
translation  should  aim  at,  is  inclined  to  admit  various  efforts.  He 
finds  fire  and  charm  in  the  La  Valterie  Odyssey}  Its  inexactness 
does  not  disturb  him,  since  he  considers  it  better  to  remove  the 
"  g^ne  litt^raire  "  and  restore  to  Homer  that  agreeableness  which 
he  certainly  had  in  the  Greek,  by  a  free  use  of  the  French  spirit 
and  expressions.  The  translator  of  the  Esprit  des  Lois  ^  is  praised 
for  his  fidelity,  but  more  particularly  for  his  endeavors  to  render 
the  spirit : 

"  II  semble  que  vous  ayez  voulu  traduire  aussi  mon  style,  et  vous  y  avez  mis 
cette  ressemblance  :  qualem  decet  esse  sororum."  ^ 

This  preference  of  the  ethos  versus  literalness  is  hardly 
supported  by  his  claim  for  the  Temple  de  Gnide,^  that  he  has  been 
faithful  to  his  (fictitious)  Greek  original :  ^ 

'*  J'ai  cru  que  les  beaut^s  qui  n'^taient  point  dans  mon  auteur,  n'^taient  point 
des  beaut^s  ;  et  j'ai  souvent  quitt^  1' expression  la  moins  vive,*  pour  prendre  celle 
qui  rendait  raieux  sa  pensee." 

As  to  the  difficulty  of  translating,  one  must  first  know  Latin 
well  and  then  forget  it."  There  should  be  no  enfeebling  of  the 
original,  "chose  que  les  auteurs  font  quelquefois,  parce  qu'ils 
estiment  trop  leur  original.''  ^  To  keep  the  Bible  "  male  et  forte," 
its  rendering  should  be  free  from  modern  affectations  and  deli- 
cacies.® Its  original  character,  its  antique  flavor,  its  poetic  style 
should  all  be  kept,  without  resort  to  popular  expressions  on  the 
one  hand,  nor  to  mere  fine  language  on  the  other.  With  this 
excellent  advice  we  may  leave  the  subject. 

The  author,  in  himself,  and  in  relation  to  his  works,  also  comes 
in  for  discussion.  "  D'abord  les  ouvrages  donnent  de  la  reputa- 
tion ^  Pouvrier,  et  ensuite  Pouvrier  aux  ouvrages."^*^     When  an 

iP.  &  K,  u,  37.  2  Thomas  Nugent.  'vii,  353. 

*  What  he  says  in  connection  with  this,  however,  is  neither  very  serious  nor  very 
sincere. 

^11,  10.  •Other  reading — "qui  n'etait  pas  la  meilleure." 

T.  &  F.,  n,  8.  » VII,  434.  » vii,  346-8.  ^o  vn,  174. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  97       • 

author  has  become  famous,  he  should  be  more  careful  than  others, 
for  nothing  retards  more  the  progress  of  knowledge  than  a  bad 
work  by  a  celebrated  author.^  Those  who  wrote  first  ^  had  the 
advantage  of  fresh  fields,  unexhausted  mines  and  great  untried 
undertakings ;  ^  they  were  also  more  admired,  because  for  a  time 
they  were  the  superiors  of  those  who  read  them.^ 

The  author,  as  a  personage,  has  his  prejudices,  his  peculiarities 
and  his  glaring  faults.  In  a  curious  chapter,  "Des  L^isla- 
teurs,"  ^  Montesquieu  passes  in  review  such  names  as  Aristotle, 
Plato,  Macchiavelli  and  More,  and  finds  a  prejudice,  the  personal 
equation,  directing  the  work  of  each.^  A  similar  ressort,  mingled 
with  vanity,  causes  authors  to  delight  in  their  own  writings  :  ^ 

"Ce  que  nous  avons  mis  dans  nos  ouvrages  tient  a  toutes  nos  autres  idees  et  se      /  y' 
rapporte  a  des  choses  qui  nous  ont  plti,  puisque  nous  les  avons  apprises."  ^ 

But  after  a  time  our  masterpieces  charm  us  less,  since  they  are  no 
longer  so  closely  linked  to  our  manner  of  thinking. 

Amour-propre^  also  a  reason  for  our  liking  our  works,  further 
impels  an  author  to  represent  men  as  better  than  they  are,  that  he 
may  be  believed  better  than  he  is.^  "  Enfin  les  auteurs  sont  des 
personnages  de  theatre.'^  He  w^ould  recommend  to  them  modesty 
and  a  consideration  rather  for  the  amour-propre  of  their  readers ; 
"  cherchons  a  nous  faire  aimer,  si  nous  voulons  nous  faire  lire.^^  ^^ 
Authors  who  would  take  a  beating  without  complaint  are  yet 
unable  to  stand  the  least  criticism  of  their  productions.^^ 

For  all  this,  for  all  their  vanity  and  pettiness,  however  small 
the  souls  that  one  may  occasionally  find  among  men  of  letters,^^ 
he  will  certainly  call  them  in  the  gross  honnMes  gens}'^  Pedigree 
does  not  matter  in  their  case^^ — which,  from  the  President,  is 
worth  noting  ^^ — and  on  mont  Parnasse  all  positions  from  foot-hills 

1 V,  452.  2Espg(,iaiiy  dramatists— cited  sup.  p.  87.  ^P.  &  F.,  ii,  20-1.      ^ 

*P.  &  F.,  II,  29.  5  V,  41.4.  «  Cf.  the  ^'  retour  secret,"  sup.  p.  53.  . 

■^  "  Un  auteur  peut  dire  que  nul  n'aura  plus  de  plaisir  a  lire  son  livre  que  lui  en 
a  eu  a  le  faire  "  — P.  &  F.,  ii,  156. 

^Mel.  in.,  146.  •     ^P.  &  R,  ii,  100.  ^op.  <fe  P.,  i,  215. 

"i,  342.  i2yjj^  451^  »=^  VII,  448. 

^*  P.  &  F.,  II,  40. — He  says  ironically,  ''J'ai  toujours  eu  mauvaise  opinion 
d' Horace,  parce  qu'il  ^tait  fils  d'un  aSranclii."  ^^Cf.  sup.,  p.  11,  note  5. 


98  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

to  summit  are  honorable.^  From  the  beginning  of  time  it  has 
been  a  characteristic  of  autliors  to  declaim  against  the  injustice 
of  their  age.^  Horace  and  Aristotle  were  already  praising  their 
ancestors  and  condemning  themselves/  the  courtiers  of  Nero  or 
of  Augustus  kept  up  the  cry,  and  according  to  the  race  of  writers, 
men  at  present  ought  to  be  bears.  Only  in  his  own  fortunate 
time — and  incidentally  in  a  Discours  AcacUmiquej  where  the  great 
Louis  must  be  duly  flattered^ — could  Montesquieu  call  such  a 
reproach  reasonless.  He  assigns  as  cause  for  this  general  lamenta- 
tion of  authors  the  fact  that  we  are  accustomed  to  consider  our 
fathers  and  masters  in  a  corrective  and  hence  in  a  more  worshipful 
attitude.^  What  he  might  have  assigned  as  a  more  potent  and 
practical  reason  is  the  fact  of  the  reciprocal  small  esteem  that 
most  ages  have  had  for  their  authors.  At  any  rate,  he  dwells 
sufficiently  upon  the  rough  roads  which  men  of  letters  usually 
travel.^  Labor  which  is  often  useless ;  despair  and  lassitude ; 
emulation  akin  to  jealousy ;  long  meditations  and  vigils  and 
sueurs — "vous  reconnaissez  la,  messieurs,  la  vie  des  gens  de 
lettres."  ^     For  them,  no  place  is  a  place  of  tranquility — 

"Nous  n'acqu^rons  par  nos  travaux  que  le  droit  de  travailler  davantage.  II 
n'y  a  que  les  dieux  qui  aient  le  privilege  de  se  reposer  sur  le  Parnasse." 

Not  only  must  an  author  endure  all  insults,  all  inquietudes,  but 
when  his  work  finally  appears,  quarrels  and  wars  pile  upon  him.^ 
He  can  obtain  esteem  only  from  those  in  his  own  field,  if  from 
them.  "  Enfin,  il  faut  joindre,  a  une  reputation  equivoque,  la 
privation  des  plaisirs  et  la  perte  de  la  sant6." 

It  would  seem  by  this  that  the  President  is  surely  of  the  mHier, 
and  of  himself  as  an  author  he  also  speaks — "  J\ii  la  maladie  de 
faire  des  livres  et  d'en  ^tre  honteux  quand  je  les  ai  faits."  ^  An 
interesting  passage  in  the  Histoire  Veritahky^^  paralleled  in  other 

1 VII,  256.  2  vij^  26.  3P.  cfe  F.,  ii,  203. 

*vii,  26.  5  P.  &F.,  II,  203. 

*  Their  condition,  be  it  remembered,  was  already  improving  in  his  time. 
'  VII,  6.  8 1^  464_5^  9  yij^  156. 

^''M'  Fortage,  pp.  56-7, 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  99 

places/  tells  of  the  trouble  through  which  he  passed  in  regard  to 
the  Lettres  persanes.  The  book  had  more  success  than  its  author. 
Envy  worked  agaiust  him,  and  far  more  was  expected  of  him 
than  formerly.  Many  fled  from  him,  because  they  claimed  he 
was  a  hel  esprit  and  affected  : — 

"Enfin,  ce  malheureux  ouvrage  me  tourmenta  toute  ma  vie,  et,  soit  qu'on  le 
lou3,t,  soit  qu'on  le  blamat,  J' en  fus  tou jours  embarrasse," 

He  shows,  however,  some  degree  of  pride  in  his  professional 
standing.  He  says  with  complacency  that  he  is  known  on  "  mont 
Parnasse,"  ^  he  feels  that  he  has  gained  "  quelque  espece  d'hon- 
neur,''  ^  he  hints  with  complacency  at  praise,*  and  even  manifests 
some  humor  when  his  manuscript  is  slighted.^  It  is  worth  noting 
that  he  considers  it  an  important  result  of  his  literary  fame  that 
his  wine  sells  well  in  England.^ 


4. 

Scholarship  and  Cognate  Fields. 

Concerning  study  and  scholarship,  institutions  and  Academies, 
science,  philosophy  and  journalism,  our  author  also  freely  expresses 
views  which  may  receive  a  compendious  exposition. 

"  Aimer  a  lire,"  he  says  roundly,  "  c'est  faire  un  ^change  des 
heures  d^ ennui  que  Ton  doit  avoir  en  sa  vie,  contre  des  heures 
d^licieuses ; ''  '^  study  has  been  for  him  the  sovereign  remedy 
against  the  troubles  of  life ;  ^  those  who  have  studied  in  their 
youth  need  in  their  old  age  only  to  remember  and  not  to  learn ;  ^ 
*'  ceux  qui  aiment  a  s'instruire  ne  sont  jamais  oisifs  ;  "  ^^  but  labor 
must  be  continuous,  for  the  less  we  work,  the  less  power  we  have 
to  work.^^     He  adduces  weighty  arguments  for  the  pleasure  and 

^The  *'J'ai  la  maladie,"  etc.,  probably  applies  to  the  L.  P.  Cf.,  also,  vii, 
153. — "  J'essuyai  mille  degouts," 

2  VII,  251.  3  VII,  413.,  *  VII,  363.  ^yu^  289. 

*vii,  403.  For  Montesquieu  and  his  critics,  cf.  in/.,  p.  122;  and  for  these 
opinions  as  connected  with  his  rank  as  an  artist,  see  later  under  Application,  p.  202, 

'vii,  169.  8vii,  151.  9vn,  176.  ^H,  170.  "vii,  433, 


100  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

profit  of  study.  Aside  from  the  satisfaction  of  intellectual 
conquest  and  the  appeasing  of  curiosity,  there  is  the  fact  that  the 
love  of  study  is  almost  the  only  lasting  passion.^  Old  age  without 
the  benefit  of  such  a  love  is  a  terrible  ennui,  and  with  it  may  still 
triumph  over  youth.  "  II  faut  se  faire  un  bonheur  qui  nous  suive 
dans  tons  les  ages."  The  utility  of  scholarship  is,  moreover,  social 
and  practical  as  well.^ 

But  he  fully  recognizes  that  not  all  the  forms  of  scholarship  are 
wise  or  profitable.  He  is  opposed  to  the  predominance  of 
authority  in  matters  of  pure  reasoning.^  Scholarship,  in  many  of 
its  manifestations,  shows  as  the  reverse  of  genius.''  It  is  a  pity 
that  justement  in  reading,  where  our  soul  puts  out  all  its  force,  it 
should  be  compelled  to  follow  others'  ideas — ideas  childish  and 
frivolous — exactly  what  we  are  seeking  to  escape.^  It  is  bad  and 
benighting  to  ridicule  savants ;  ®  but  their  powerlessness  of  adapta- 
tion often  exposes  them  to  scorn : 

"Us  sont  gauches  quand  ils  veulent  etre  fri voles,  et  sots  quand  ils  veulent 
raisonner  avec  des  machines  qui  n'ont  jamais  fait  que  sentir."  ' 

He  cannot  esteem  these  savants,  whose  knowledge  has  no 
connection  with  their  soul,  "  et  qui  annoncent  la  sagesse  des  autres 
sans  ^tre  sages  eux-memes."  ^  When  scholars  degenerate  into 
pedants,  he  little  likes  their  style  of  writing ;  ^  and  he  congratulates 
himself  that  there  is  no  nation  less  pedantic  than  the  French.^^ 
The  blind  passion  of  a  manuscript  hunter,"  the  excessive  care  for 
minutiae  and  details,^^  the  empty  subtleties  of  dialecticians^^  he  finds 
ridiculous  and  openly  mocks. 

With  the  hard  conditions  of  scholars,  however,  as  with  that  of 
writers,^*  he  is  disposed  to  sympathize.  They  are  not  appreciated 
to-day,  now  that  the  salon  influence  is  supreme ;  ^^  an  ungrateful 
country,  which  employs  the  fruits  of  their  labors,  yet  dares  call 

1 VII,  79-80. 

^ He 'extols  the  importance  of  method    (vii,  179),  and  makes  the  modern 

recommendation  of  extreme  care  in  the  use  of  sources  (P.  &  F.,  ii,  46). 
^P.  &  F.,  II,  22,  cf.  sup.,  p.  53.  'P.  &  F,  u,  252.  ^P.  &  F,  i,  157. 

6  VII,  2.  ''P.  &  F,  II,  156.  sp.  &  F,  II,  157.  ^P.  &  P.,  ii,  49. 

»»P.  <feP.,  II,  176.  1^1,447.  121^334 

13 1^  142  ;  P.&F,  II,  23.  »*Cf.  sup.,  p.  98,  ^^P.  &  F,  ii,  31. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  101 

them  useless.^  There  is  an  imaginary  letter  from  a  savant  in"the 
Lettres  persanes^  giving  in  a  semi-serious  way,  the  hardships  of 
his  lot.^  In  general,  such  men  have  to  suffer  poverty,  privations 
and  persecutions,  sustained  only  by  droiture  dans  le  coeur  and  the 
persistent  thirst  for  learning. 

He  continues  his  remonstrance  against  set  authority  by  stigma- 
tising as  dangerous  the  project  of  the  Journaux  de  Trevoux  "  de  se 
rendre  maitres  de  la  litt^rature ; ''  ^  by  declaring  that  there  is  room 
for  all  in  the  Republic  of  Letters.^  As  to  institutions,  demi- 
GolUges  are  no  help  to  knowledge,  estranging  as  they  do  the  sons  of 
bourgeois  from  their  true  estate,  without  giving  them  the  other/ 
The  education  of  colleges  in  general  is  hassCy  bigoted,  damaging  to 
the  intelligence  and  to  the  heart.  The  Sorbonne,  which  held  him 
under  its  censure  for  a  time,^  provokes  a  hon  mot : 

"  Cette  Sorbonne  est  la  mouche  du  coche  ;  elle  croit  qu'elle  fait  remuer  tout."  ' 

It  is  particularly  the  Academy  which  he  attacks,  as  French  men 
of  letters  usually  attack  that  institution  until  they  are  admitted  to 
its  doors.  Yian  has  remarked  ^  that  at  the  time  of  Montesquieu's 
second  candidacy,^  the  Academy  was  composed  largely  of  church- 
men and  lords  with  "  quelques  gens  de  lettres.'^  ^^  This  illustrious 
body  had  refused  him  admission  two  years  before,  mainly  on 
account  of  his  epigrams  against  them  in  the  Lettres  persanes. 
Such  action  hardly  tended  to  diminish  the  epigrams : 

"Ce  corps  a  quarante  tetes,  toutes  remplies  de  figures,  de  metaphores  et 
d' antitheses.  Tant  de  bouches  ne  parlent  presque  que  par  exclamation  ;  ses 
oreilles  veulent  tou jours  etre  f rappees  par  la  cadence  et  1' harmonic." 

It  is  never  constant,  was  formerly  greedy  and  is  always  bizarre. 
They  have  the  fury  of  the  panegyric — ^'  Peloge  va  se  placer, 
comme  de  lui-m§me,  dans  leur  babil  6ternel."  ^^  The  Academy 
will  never  fall ;  as  long  as  there  will  be  fools  there  will  be  also 
heaux-esprits}'^ 


^P.  &F.,ii,  122. 

2 1,  462-4. 

^P.&F.,ii,  63. 

*P.  &  F.,  II,  27. 

5P.  &  F.,  II,  308. 

«vii,  397,  402.  Cf.  inf.,  p.  189. 

'  VII,  422. 

^Hist,  p.  99. 

« In  1727. 

^  About  six. 

Ill,  247-8. 

i2p.  &F.,  II,  127. 

102  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

After  his  election,  it  is  without  surprise  that  we  hear  him  declare 
that  such  institutions  are  made  to  promote  amity,  "  une  alliance 
entre  les  gens  de  lettres,  et  pour  ^tre  comme  le  temple  de  la  paix. ''  ^ 
The  Academy  gave  us  the  finest  model  of  the  critical  genre  in  its 
Critique  sur  le  CifU  Our  author's  Dkcours  de  R^ception^  may 
itself  be  esteemed  a  fine  model  of  tergiversation — "just  for  a 
riband  to  stick  in  his  coat."  He  harangues  the  brotherhood  to 
the  effect  that  they  are  inspired  with  the  love  of  righteous  men, 
and  with  the  hate  of  genius  unadorned  by  virtue ;  that  they  are 
established  to  render  worship  unto  Louis  XIV,  Richelieu  and 
S%uier ;  that  he  is  happy  in  being  elevated,  associated  to  such 
masters  in  the  art  of  various  eulogy ;  and  he  proceeds  to  do  his 
best  for  his  predecessor. 

He  is  equally  solicitous  concerning  other  Academies.  He 
sought  to  join  the  Academy  of  Stanislas  at  Nancy,  and  was  much 
pleased  when  elected.'*  It  is  to  be  remarked  that  the  best  of  his 
commendation  for  literature'*  is  taken  from  a  Discours  to  that  very 
Academy  of  Bordeaux  whose  activities  he  turned  from  belles-lettres 
to  science  : 

"  II  regardait  les  soci^tds  de  bel  esprit,  si  ^trangement  multiplies  dans  nos 
provinces,  comme  une  espece,  ou  plutot  comme  une  ombre  de  luxe  litt^raire,  qui 
nuit  k  1' opulence  reelle,  sans  m^me  en  offrir  I'apparence."  • 

His  early  taste  for  science  has  been  mentioned.^  He  does 
not  value  at  a  high  figure  his  scientific  writings  upon  Natural 
History,  the  causes  of  echo,  etc  : 

"II  ne  faut  point  chercher  la  reputation  par  ces  sortes  d'ouvrages,  ils  ne 
I'obtiennent  ni  ne  la  m^ritent ;  on  profite  des  observations,  mais  on  ne  connait  pas 
I'observateur."^ 

Mere  observation  does  not  require  much  talent ;  a  mediocre 
observer,  incapable  of  constructing  a  system,  may  yet  find  a  fact 
which  will  put  even  a  Newton  to  the  torture ;   but  Newton  will 

1 VII,  447.  2  By  Chapelain— P.  &  R,  ii,  50.  '  vii,  91-5. 

*vii,  368-72.  *  Quoted  mp.,  p.  83. 

*d'Alembert,  p.  iv.     Also  cf.  Auger,  Vie,  p.  vii  ;   Z^vort,  Montesqkieu,  p.  37  ; 
Vian,  Histoire,  pp.  43,  47. 
'Cf.  sup.,  p.  10.       '    8yjj^  53^ 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  103 

always  be  Newton,  and  the  other  "nn  homme  commun,  un~vil 
artiste  [sic'j,  qui  a  vii  une  fois,  et  n'a  peut-^tre  jamais  pens6." 
The  sciences  are  capable  of  division  into  those  "  qui  sont 
uniquement  du  ressort  de  la  memoire/'  and  those  for  which  genius 
is  needed.^  Again,  he  has  stated  the  dependence  of  the  whole 
body  of  sciences  upon  belles-lettres.^  His  use  of  the  word  '  science/ 
even  in  the  Bordeaux  Academy  Discours  sur  les  motifs  qui  doivent 
nous  encourager  aux  sciences,  is  broad  enough  to  include  knowledge 
and  scholarship  in  general,  and  has  little  more  than  a  rhetorical 
opposition  to  the  arts  and  literature.^ 

To  pass  for  a  moment  to  the  other  pole  where  literature  touches 
life,  our  author  can  hardly  be  considered  a  fervent  friend  of 
journalism.  The  journalistes^  are  wrong  in  praising  only  new 
books,  and  are  insincere  in  their  criticisms.^  The  nouvellistes,  who 
were  the  real  purveyors  of  news  in  those  times,  the  idle  haunters 
of  the  Tuileries,  are  useless,  vain,  frivolous  and  bitten  with  an 
abundant  curiosity.^  They  are  always  exaggerating  their  informa- 
tion ;  "  ils  ne  sauraient  consentir  a  ignorer  quelque  chose."  They 
are  further  marked  by  a  mania  for  gratuitous  prophecy,  by 
truckling  and  chauvinism.  They  lack  only  modesty  and  good 
sense. 

Other  kinds  of  writing  or  discourse — not  literature,  though 
connected  therewith — on  which  Montesquieu  delivers  himself,  are 
philosophy,  theology,  jurisprudence  and  oratory.  The  first,  he 
sees,  is  in  a  way  the  fountainhead  of  knowledge  : 

"  La  philosophie  ne  doit  point  ^tre  isol^e  ;  elle  a  des  rapports  avec  tout." 

He  declares  its  value,  singularly  illustrating  by  saying  that  if  the 
Mexicans  had  been  Cartesians,  Cortez  could  never  have  conquered 
them.'^  But  with  this  exception  and  another,^  he  thinks  little  of 
the  individual  philosophers  : 

lyii,  85.  ^Yii,  81. 

^It  is  from  this  Discours  that  were  drawn  many  of  our  citations  on  the  value  of 
literature  and  of  study — cf .  sup. ,  p.  83. 

*  That  is,  book-reviewers.  ^i,  342-3.  ^j^  403_4. 

'P.  &  F.,  I,  388-9.     This  is  either  a  gasconade  or  a  poor  pun. 
^Malebranche — cf.  inf.,  p.  142. 


104  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

'*La  philosophic  des  Grecs  ^tait  tres  peu  de  chose.  lis  ont  gat^  tout 
I'Univers  :  non  seulement  leurs  contemporains,  mais  aussi  leurs  successeurs. "  * 

Their  great  error  of  not  distinguishing  between  positive  and 
relative  qualities  inundated  all  their  knowledge.  The  Pytha- 
goreans were  pitiable  and  puerile,  and  too  submissive  to  Ipse 
dixit.  We  have  never  gained  much  by  taking  over  the  jargon  of 
Aristotle.^  Plato,  Cicero  or  Lucretius  may  be  ^^beau."  The  sects 
of  Epicureans  and  Stoics  contributed  mainly  to  the  preparation 
for  Christianity.  In  general,  philosophy  is  an  excellent  soporific,^ 
and — 

"  C'est  une  chose  extraordinaire  que  toute  la  philosophic  consiste  dans  ces  trois 
mots  :  Je  m'en  f  .  .  .  "  * 

The  seductive  sides  of  metaphysics  are,  first,  that  it  suits  for 
lazy  people  to  study  in  bed,  and,  second,  that  it  treats  of  great 
things  and  great  interests,  God,  man,  nature  and  the  future.^  As 
to  philosophy  in  the  special  eighteenth-century  sense,  he  holds 
that  it  has  won  over  the  intelligence,  but  left  the  national 
character  and  manners.*^ 

For  ethical  and  theological  books,  our  moral  authors  are  outris 
in  speaking  to  the  understanding  and  not  to  the  soul ;  ^  but  a 
moral  treatise  as  such  would  not  shock  even  a  prince.^  Works  of 
this  kind  are  much  more  useful  than  ascetic  or  devotional  books.'' 
Those  of  theology  are  "doublement  inintelligibles,  et  par  la 
mati^re  qui  y  est  trait^e,  et  par  la  maniSre  de  la  traiter."  Those 
of  mystics,  "  des  divots  qui  ont  le  coeur  tendre,"  contain  ecstasies 
and  ravissementSf  the  warmth  of  the  heart  provoking  that  of  the 
brain  and  resulting  in  "le  d^lire  de  la  devotion."  When,  as  in 
the  case  of  Santa  Theresa,  the  ecstasies  are  real  and  recounted  by 
the  person  who  has  experienced  them,  they  are  easily  pardonable ; 
but  there  is  no  excuse  for  a  cold  and  fictitious  relation  of  "les 
plus  grandes  niaiseries  du  monde'^  by  another  party,  as  is  the 
case  of  the  Vie  de  Marie  Alacoque}^ 

J  l^       ^R&K,  II,  489-92.     2 Qf.  inf.,  p/l34^    *P.  &  F.,  11,  300.     *R&F.,  11,  483. 
^P.  &  F.,  II,  475.     Cf.  I,  419,  ''leMiVres  de  mdtaphysique,  qui  traitent  de  si 
grands  interets,  et  dans  lesquels  I'infini  se  rencontre  partout." 

6  VII,  268.  'P.  <&  F,  II,  297.  ep.  &  F,  u,  19. 

9 1,  417.  lop.  &F,  II,  527-8. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  105 

Casuists  deal  with  secret,  imaginative  and  seductive  things ;  ^ 
they  are  derided  in  a  portrait  of  the  Lettres  persanes,^  as  addicted 
to  vain  subtleties  and  as  seeking  to  win  heaven  at  the  best 
bargain. 

In  short,  theology,  if  it  has  not  spoiled  its  victim,  may  pass 
him  on  to  natural  philosophy.^ 

With  law-books,  the  degag6  advocate  of  Letter  Lxviii  *  would 
readily  dispense.  Such  monuments  of  a  vain  science  are  only  in 
the  way,  since  almost  all  cases  are  idiosyncratic  and  not  to  be 
found  under  any  general  rule.  It  is  a  question,  not  of  knowledge, 
but  of  practical  application  in  the  courts.  Montesquieu  pays  his 
compliments  to  procedure  ^  and  legal  chicanery  in  the  fine  Discours 
prononce  a  la  rentrSe  du  Parlement  de  Bordeaux  :  ^ 

"L'obscurite  du  fond. a  fait  naitre  la  forme.  Les  fourbes,  qui  ont  esp^rd  de 
pouvoir  cacher  leur  malice  s'en  sont  fait  une  espece  d'art."  "^ 

He  exhorts  the  advocates  and  the  procureiirs  to  be  just,  upright, 
merciful,  considerate  of  their  duty  to  the  public.^  Among  great 
legislators  he  ranks  Puffendorf  and  Grotius.  The  first  is  the 
"  Tacite  d'Allemagne.'^  ^  Both,  as  his  precursors,  receive  a 
generous  tribute  : 

"  Je  rends  graces  a  MM.  Grotius  et  Puffendorf  d' avoir  execute  ce  qu'une  grande 
partie  de  cet  ouvrage  ^°  demandait  de  moi,  avec  cette  hauteur  de  g^nie  a  laquelle  je 
n'aurais  pu  atteindre."  ^^ 

Orators,  ^^  qui  ont  le  talent  de  persuader  ind^pendamment  des 
raisons,'^  ^^  yet  prove  in  the  long  run  less  powerfully  persuasive 
than  those  whom  we  really  esteem. ^^  He  does  not  think  their  sort 
very  influential  with  the  people  : 

"Le  Peuple  ne  suit  point  les  raisonnements  des  orateurs.  II  pent  ^tre  frapp^ 
par  les  images  et  par  une  Eloquence  qui  a  des  mouvements  ;  mais  rien  ne  le 
determine  bien  que  les  spectacles."  ^* 


1 1,  417. 

^i, 

201. 

3  VII, 

268. 

*i,  237-8. 

i^'' Quant 

a  la  procedure, 

jen 

'y  entendais 

rien" 

—VII, 

152. 

« In  1725. 

^vii,  56. 

^VII 

,  63-5. 

«  Voy.,  II, 

202. 

i»^.  L. 

"P. 

&F.,i,  100. 

^2 1,  419. 

i3p.  &F., 

II,  22. 

/ 

i*P. 

<feP.,  II,  231. 

106  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

What  orators  lack  in  profundity,  they  will  give  you  in  length ;  ^ 
and  they  magnify  or  diminish  the  importance  of  things  to  suit 
their  purposes.^ 

To  take  oratory's  special  types,  we  have  seen  him  criticize  the 
Academy  eloge  ;  ^  the  oraison  fun^bre  is  likewise  a  deliverance  of 
praise,  "avec  lequel  on  serait  bien  embarrasse  de  decider  au  juste 
du  m^rite  du  d6funt."  ^  Of  sermons  he  has  hardly  a  word  to  say, 
alluding  simply  to  the  old  discourses  of  Maillard,  Menot,  Rollin 
and  Barletta^  as  seeming  burlesques  to-day,  though  sufficiently 
serious  in  their  time.^ 

He  makes  frequent  rapprochement  between  orators  and  poets. 
The  former  have  ruined  themselves  in  imitating  the  latter.^  The 
works  of  both  are  "ouvrages  d'ostentation,"  ^  and  have  but  a 
"  general  utility."  ^  They  are  alike  addicted  to  a  wearisone 
uniformity,  orators  in  periods,  poets  in  measures  and  cadences. ^° 

5. 

Genres — Poetry,  Fiction,  Drama,  History,  Satire 
AND  Criticism. 

Poetry,  in  itself,  made  little  or  no  appeal  to  Montesquieu. 
What  Ste-Beuve  ^^  has  called  an  "  exclamation  memorable '' — 
the  famous  dictum  that  the  four  great  poets  are  Plato,  Male- 
branche,  Shaftesbury  and  Montaigne  ^^ — shows  well  enough  where 
lie  our  author's  tastes.  He  will  value  principally  the  poetry  of 
thought,  of  philosophy,  with  little  regard  for  musical  or  senti- 
mental elements. 

He  admits  readily  enough  his  own  failures  in  this  respect, ^^  and 
even  when  he  addresses  the  Muses,  he  is  careful  to  make  a 
discrimination  between  their  respective  provinces  : 

*'  Divines  Muses,  je  sens  que  vous  m'inspirez,  non  pas  ce  qu'on  chante  a  Temp^ 
sur  les  chalumeaux,  ou  ce  qu'on  r^pete  a  Delos  sur  la  lyre  ;  vous  voulez  que  je 
parle  k  la  raison."  ^* 


1 VII,  171.        ^P.  &F.,u,  24.        ^i,  247— But  cf.  mp.,  p.  102.         *i,  153. 
^Fifteenth  and  sixteenth  centuries.        «P.  &  F.,  ii,  31-2.         'P.  &  F.,  ii,  17. 
«v,  403  ;  vn,  171.  »  vii,  81.  i»vii,  123. 

"  C.  de  L.,  IV,  94.  ^^  y^^  171,  13  y^^^  199^  393,  u  jy^  360. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  107 

The  subject  receives  much  comment  in  the  Pensies  et  Fragmente^ 
and  poets  furnish  both  a  portrait  and  an  important  division  of 
Rica's  library  talks,  in  the  Lettres  persanes.  A  poet,  with  his 
grimaces,  his  lack  of  good  clothing  and  of  savoir-faire  is  "le 
grotesque  du  genre  humain  '^  and  the  most  ridiculous  of  men.^ 
He  may  be  born  such,  as  he  declares ;  he  will  certainly  remain 
such  all  his  life.  So  he  is  exposed  to  the  full  scorn  of  the  public,^ 
to  poverty,  and  at  best  to  the  mercies  of  his  patrons.^ 

In  Rica's  analysis,^  the  poets  are  "  ces  auteurs  dont  le  metier 
est  de  mettre  des  entraves  au  bon  sens,  et  d'accabler  la  raison 
sous  des  agrements."  ^  For  the  several  kinds,  the  epic  is  a  type 
concerning  which  he  knows  very  little ;  but  connaisseurs  say  that 
there  have  never  been  but  two,^  and  that  all  the  others  are  false 
epics.  They  say,  moreover,  that  it  is  impossible  to  make  new 
ones;  "  et  cela  est  encore  plus  surprenant."  ^ 

The  lyric  he  scorns  as  much  as  the  others,  considering  that  art 
^^une  harmonieuse  extravagance."  The  idyll  and  eclogue  give 
a  pleasing  sense  of  tranquility,  in  showing  the  condition  of 
shepherds.     The  most  dangerous  class  are  the  epigrammatists.^ 

The  only  species  whom  he  is  willing  to  admire  are  the 
dramatists,^  "qui,  selon  moi,  sont  les  pontes  par  excellence,  et 
les  maitres  des  passions,''  whether  moving  us  gently  in  comedy, 
or,  in  tragedy,  with  violence  and  agitation. 

But  the  Troglodytes  are  allowed  epic  and  pastoral  song  as 
at  any  rate  connected  with  simplicity  and  innocence.^^  Poetry 
flourishes  best  in  quiet  places  and  the  silence  of  the  woods ;  ^^  and 
perhaps  it  is  hence   that  he  allows  singers  to.  celebrate  the  vie 


^  T,  173.  2  Even  to  the  point  of  being  beaten  (i,  343). 

2  In  E.  L.,  M,  dwells  on  the  base  uses  of  poetry,  its  association  with  rhetoric 
and  flattery  (v,  488).  *i,  425-6. 

^Elsewhere  (P.  &  F.,  ii,  507),  M.  makes  the  ''ddliredes  poetes"  responsible 
for  Paganism. 

®  Probably  the  Iliad  and  the  Aeneid. 

"^  This  is  probably  a  sly  hit  at  the  Henriade,  which  was  jusi  in  the  writing  (cf.  inf., 
p.  144).  As  to  the  artificial  epic,  he  claims  (P.  &  F.,  ii,  19)  that  fiction  is  such 
an  integral  part  of  the  genre  that  the  Paradise  Lost  could  be  admired  in  England 
only  after  religion  had  begun  to  assume  a  fictional  value. 

« See  inf.,  p.  119.  » Cf.  inf.,  p.  113  f.  lo i,  83.  "  vii,  9. 


108  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

champUre  and  the  late  lamented  Golden  Age.'  He  would  then 
naturally  allow  description  and  it  has  been  seen  that  he  con- 
siders poetry  a  literary  division  whose  subject  consists  "  dans  la 
peinture.'^  ^  Whether  painting  the  effects  of  nature  or  of  the 
passions,  a  flow  of  words  here  seems  in  order.  The  method  may 
merge  into  that  of  narrating  by  effects,  as  when  Ovid  depicts 
the  state  of  Lucrece  and  her  abandonment  to  grief.^ 

The  poetry  of  love  receives  only  slight  and  unimpassioned 
mention  in  the  Voyage  d,  Paphos*  The  "titres  galants^'  are 
there  arranged  on  different  shelves,  with  a  preference  for  the 
ancients.®  They  include  a  small  number  of  authors,  "  qui  se  sont 
plus  attaches  aux  sentiments  qu*^  Pesprit.^'  But  Montesquieu 
recognizes  little  high  expression  of  this  passion,  and  a  certain 
poet  who  attempts  to  celebrate  the  pleasures  of  love  with  fatuity, 
emphase  and  exhaustion  of  his  technical  devices,  is  thus  disposed 
of  by  Venus : 

'  *  Les  Muses  seront  peut-^tre  contentes  de  votre  ouvrage  ;  mais  je  connais  des 
plaisirs  qu'Apollon  m§me  n'exprimera  jamais."  ^ 

With  reference  to  the  Temple  de  Gnide,  however,  he  has  declared 
that,  while  directly  licentious  poetry  is  vicious,  yet  to  move  the 
passions  is  its  essential  purpose.^ 

So  far  as  concerns  his  personal  relation  with  poetry,  he  shows 
at  best  only  a  flowery  and  conventional  esteem  therefor.  He  feels 
impelled  to  use  high-flown  terms  in  speaking  of  Muses  and 
Graces ;  ^  and  he  takes  great  delight  in  quoting,  in  pondering 
over  and  elucidating  single  classical  lines,^  which  shows  at  any 
rate  a  care  for  the  single  word.^^  But  his  praise  of  a  work,  as 
one  editor  remarks,^^  would  be  "c'-est  beau  comme  de  la  prose," 
which  last  Montesquieu  distinguishes'  as  a  large  and  majestic 
river,  against  the  jet  d^eau  of  beaux  vers}^     His  sole  favorable 

1 VII,  133.  2p  ^  p    jj^  45      cf.  mp.,  p.  86,  note  1.  ^P.  &  F.,  ii,  43. 

*  VII,  467.  ^Cf.  w/.,  p.  125.  « VII,  469. 

'  Cf.  mip.,  p.  91.  ^Yu,  87,  388. 

» As  exemplified  inf.,  p.  136.  Also  vn,  9;  P.  &  F.,  ii,  7,  14,  58,  and  Ibid., 
pp.  44  ff.,  where  for  pages  he  draws  on  the, one  line  of  Ovid. 

w Cf.  inf.,  p.  158.  "  vn,  )02.  '^P.  &  F.,  ii,  12. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  109 

judgment  as  to  the  utility  of  poetry  is  that  Plato  was  wrong  and- 
self-contradictory  in  banishing  poets  from  the  Republic.^ 

Among  the  various  nations,  French  poetry  in  itself  may  be 
bad,  but  their  poets  are  perhaps  good.^  The  mediaeval  product 
gives  him  little  delight : 

''On  ne  voit  rien  de  si  pitoyable  que  les  poesies  de  cinq  ou  six  si^cles  .  .  .  de 
miserables  ouvrages,  faits  par  des  gens  qui  n'avaient  que  des  idees  prises  de 
I'Ecriture  sainte."  ^ 

Yet  everything,  the  number  of  poets,  emulation  and  patronage, 
should  have  contributed  to  make  good  works — a  state  realized 
only  when  people  began  to  read,  imitate  and  approach  unto  the 
Ancients.^  The  classics  then,  his  constant  choice,  are  also  pre- 
dominant in  this  field.  For  the  English  poets,  they  show  rather 
a  "  rudesse  originale  d^invention ''  than  a  delicacy  of  taste.^ 

The  invention,  however,  the  "  making,' '  is  what  constitutes  the 
genius  of  a  poem,  as  of  other  ^oio^krj  Nor  can  he  disregard 
the  technical  elements  which  enter  in  for  its  perfecting.  He 
considers  the  quality  of  "declamation''  as  closely  allied  to  the 
music  of  the  verse.'^  The  Italian  recitative,  "une  declamation 
plus  haute,"  which  is  in  its  syllabic  values  akin  to  the  English 
and  German,^  is  totally  unsuited  to  the  French. 

"  Chaque  musique  est  done  excellente,  c'est-a-dire  la  plus  excellente  que  chaque 
langue  puisse  porter.  II  me  semble  seulement  que  notre  declamation  est  meilleure, 
et  notre  musique,  moins  bonne." 

The  Italian  declamation  is  feeble  and  unfit  for  tragedy,  its  rimed 
lines  are  insupportable,  and  its  trochees,  for  physical  reasons, 
inferior  to  the  French  iambics : 

* '  Les  iambes  f rappent  mieux  les  organes.  La  longue  qui  finit  le  mot  semble  lui 
ajouter  quelque  chose  ;  la  ])reve  qui  le  finit  semble  lui  6ter  quelque  chose. 
Lorsque  nous  voulons  mou voir  un  corps,  nous  I'ebranlons  et  gardons  toujours  la 
grande  percussion  pour  le  fin.     II  en  est  de  meme  des  mouvements  de  I'ame." 


ip.  &  F.,  I,  176  ;  P.  &  K,  II,  20.  ^P.  &  P.,  ii,  31. 

/-^P^<fe  P.,  I,  226-7.  *Cf.  inf.,  p.  126.  ^iv,  356. 

*\  «P.  i  P.,  II,  52-3,  cf.  sup.,  p.  81.  ^P.  &  P.,  II,  4-5. 

*^These  languages,  he  asserts  with  decision,  make  only  dactyls    (!) — which 
approach  nearer  to  the  trochee  than  to  the  iambus. 


110  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

Such  is  true  cadence,  as  the  ancients  have  shown.^  Also,  the 
French  caesura  is  invariable,  while  the  Italian  can  be  changed. 
Feminine  rimes  in  both  languages  are  "  trop  donees,''  and  rime 
in  general  comes  "  lorsque  Pon  commence  a  sortir  de  la  premiere 
barbaric."^  Transpositions,  allowable  in  poetry,  frequently  give 
it  an  advantage  over  prose,  as  putting  the  important  word  in  the 
right  place.^  Climactic  arrangement  generally,  whether  of  expres- 
sion or  thought,  is  desirable.* 

His  tour  de  force  idea  ^  recurs  :  "  II  sort  de  Pembarras  des  vers 
^  X  quelque  chose  qui  plait.''  ^     He  again  rejects  ornaments,  in  so  far 
^'  as  that  means  what  is  pretentious  and  rechercMJ     Epithets,  he 
thinks,  should  be  frequent : 

**  EUes  ajoutent  tou jours.     Ce  sont  les  couleurs,  les  images  des  objets."  ® 

They  make  the  charm  of  T6Umaque. 

The  element  of  mystery  ^  is  also  acknowledged. 

For  the  psychology  of  poetry,  such  matters  as  brief  or  impetu- 
ous expression  should  depend  upon  the  state  of  soul  represented. 
Not  everything  should  end  epigrammatically.^"  Finally,  poetry 
and  dogma  are  opposing  poles,  as  illustrated  by  Racine  and 
Boileau;  the  first  revealed  the  sentiments,  the  grandeur  of  reli- 
gion, whereas  the  second  drew  from  Jansenism  "  des  discussions 
theologiques,  sujet  stranger  et  ennemi  de  la  poesie."  " 

Fiction  constitutes  a  department  which,  in  some  particulars,  is 
close  to  poetry.  Immediately  following  his  diatribes  on  the 
latter  subject,  Rica's  librarian  vents  himself  on 

"les  romans,  dont  les  auteurs  sont  des  especes  de  poetes/'  et  qui  outrent 
^galement  le  langage  de  1' esprit  et  celui  du  coeur  ;  ils  passent  leur  vie  a  chercher 
la  nature,  et  la  manquent  tou  jours ;  leurs  h^ros  y  sont  aussi  Strangers  que  les 
dragons  ailes  et  les  hippocentaures. "  ^' 


ip.  &  F.,  II,  6-7.  Ubid.,  p.  12. 

^  Cf.,  Spencer's  Philosophy  of  Style,  where  he  argues  for  the  inverted  or  ''direct" 
order  as  that  which  is  at  once  the  most  effective  and  the  most  economic  of 
attention. 

^P.  <fe  P.,  II,  43.  ^Cf.,  sup.,  p.  43.  ^P.  &  P.,  II,  12. 

'  Ibid.,  p.  58.     Cf.  sup.,  p.  43.       sp.  <fe  P.,  I,  228.  ^Cf.,  sup.,  p.  41. 

lop.  &F.,  II,  42.  'mid.,  p.  52. 

12  The  two  are  also  associated  in  i,  435.  "i,  426-7, 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  111 

Rica  assures  him  that  the  Persian  authors  are  no  better,  fully  as 
unnatural,  and  ^^  extr^mement  genes  par  nos  moeurs/'  A  lover 
must  pass  ten  years  of  passion  as  preliminary  to  seeing  the  face 
of  his  mistress.  Since  the  incidents  cannot  be  varied,  the 
romancers  have  resort  to  an  artificial  remedy  worse  than  the  dis- 
ease— that  is,  to  prodigies.  "  Ces  aventures  froides  et  souvent 
rep^t^es  nous  font  languir,  et  ces  prodiges  extra vagants  nous 
revoltent."  ^ 

Other  allusions  amply  show  that  practically  the  only  romans 
which  Montesquieu  knew^  were  the  stories  of  chivalry  or  of 
wonder,  certain  of  the  old  romans  d^aventure  and  a  wearisome 
number  of  their  later  cold  imitations.  In  mediaeval  times,  there 
were,  to  be  sure,  the  "romans  grecs,''  but  most  important,  he 
thinks,  were  the  tales  directly  associated  with  chivalry  and  its 
marvels,  the  accounts  of  paladins,  necromancers,  fairies,  enchanted 
palaces,  etc.^  From  the  idea  therein  contained  of  championing 
weakness  and  punishing  justice,  came  the  whole  modern  concep- 
tion of  gallantry  connected  with  love,  the  protection  of  women 
producing  a  desire  to  please  them. 

But  prodigies  and  magic  are  what  chiefly  impress  him.  He 
speaks  of  "les  merveilles  des  romans,  ou,  apres  avoir  pass^  par 
des  rochers  et  des  pays  arides,  on  se  trouve  dans  un  lieu  fait 
par  les  f^es."  ^  Romans  please  by  the  variety  of  prodigies.^  The 
"  merveilleux "  characterises  fiction  as  well  as  the  "  Fable.''  ® 
At  Paphos,  the  volumes  of  stories  are  small,  because  "on  en  a 
retranch6  les  histoires  magiques  et  les  conversations  ennuyeuses."  '^ 

In  regard  to  the  Lettres  persanes,  he  claims  for  it  a  plot,  and 
divines  generally  the  important  secret  that  novels  please  because 
we  picture  ourselves  in  the  position  of  the  hero  or  heroine.  This 
is  connected  with  his  former  appreciation  of  impressionism  or  the 
individual's  private  and  personal  judgment  of  things  with  refer- 
ence to  himself. — ^ 


^i,  427.  2  Except  Manon  Lescaut,  cf.  inf.,  p.  139. 

*vii,  138.  ^yu,  123. 

«vii,  144.     For  the  "Fable,"  cf.  inf.,  p.  113. 

'VII,  467-8.  8  Cf.  sup.,  p.  53. 


112  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

"Rien  n'a  plu  davantage,  dans  les  LeUres  persanes,  que  d'y  trouver,  sans  y 
penser,  une  esp^ce  de  roman.  On  en  voit  le  commencement,  le  progres,  la  fin  :  les 
divers  personnages  sont  placfe  dans  une  chaine  qui  les  lie.  .  . 

''D'ailleurs  ces  sortes  de  romans  r^ussissent  ordinairement,  parce  que  Pon  rend 
;?  compte  soi-m6me  de  sa  situation  actuelle  ;  ce  qui  fait  plus  sentir  les  passions  que 
tous  les  r^cits  qu'on  en  pourrait  faire."  ^ 

Moreover,  digressions  ^  are  not  allowed  in  the  ordinary  roTnan, 
except  when  virtually  constituting  a  new  story ;  nor  are  disquisi- 
tions and  reasonings  permitted,  as  opposed  to  the  design  and 
nature  of  such  a  work. 

Novels  are  bound  faithfully  to  depict  passions.^  For  himself, 
he  reads  rontons  only  when  gloomy.^  Pure  story-telling,  by  a 
raconteur,  does  not  interest  him  for  itself,  but  only  for  "la 
mani^re  de  la  faire."  ^  This  last  must  have  been  a  powerful 
interest  indeed,  since  he  submitted  to  hearing  one  poor  little 
histoire  two  hundred  and  twenty-nine  times — "dont  je  fus  tr^s 
content.''  ^ 

An  allied  form,  the  fable,  receives  some  slight  attention.  The 
authors  of  the  ancient  fables  are  sought  for,  because  they  were 
"  les  nourrices  des  premiers  temps  et  les  vieillards  qui  amusaient 
leurs  petits-enfants  an  coin  du  feu."^  What  they  related  was 
unliterary,  was  as  purely  folk-lore  tradition  as  a  salacious  story. 
The  fables  were  later  compiled  by  a  Lokman,  a  Bidpai,  an  Esop, 
who  may  have  added  the  moral  reflections.  The  genre,  however, 
was  hardly  invented  by  the  Orientals  for  the  sake  of  the  moral. ^ 
That  sort  of  truth  was  likely  to  be  more  offensive  than  a  direct 
statement,  in  its  suggestion  of  stupidity  in  the  hearer,  and  either 
kind  is  sufficiently  unpleasant  in  particular  application.  It  was 
useless,  if  the  truth  were  merely  general,  to  take  the  detour  of  an 
allegory.  For  why  should  a  prince  be  shocked  by  a  moral 
treatise  ?  ^ 


^i,  47-8.     For  criticism  of  the  "chaine,"  cf.  inf.,  p.  194. 

2  Cf.,  inf.,  p.  160.         ^P.  &  F.,  I,  34-5.     Cf.  sup.,  p.  86,  note  1.         *  vii,  377. 

°  Which  might  point  to  a  lack  of  care  for  plot. — vii,  152. 

6  VII,  179.  T.  &  F.,  u,  lS-19. 

^''Pour  dire  aux  princes  des  verites  d^tournees." 

^  Cf .  for  morality,  sup. ,  p.  37  and  p.  82. 


I 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  113 

Montesquieu  also  uses  the  word  ^  Fable/  with  a  capital,  nearly 
in  the  sense  of  "recit  mythologique  relatif  au  polyth^isme/'^ 
From  the  antique  vie  champ^tre  spring — 

*'cet  air  riant  repandu  dans  toute  la  Fable  .  .  .  ces  descriptions  heureuses,  ces 
aventures  naives,  ces  divinites  gracieuses,  ce  spectacle  d'  un  etat  assez  different  du 
n6tre  pour  le  desirer,  et  qui  n'en  est  pas  assez  eloigne  pour  choquer  la 
vraisemblance,  enfin  ce  melange  de  passions  et  de  tranquillite."  ^ 

Our  imagination  laughs  at  the  idea  of  the  gods  and  the  nymphs, 
the  woods,  fields  and  fountains.  The  word  ^  Fable '  thus  acquired 
for  him  a  flavor  of  la  vieille  romance,  and  in  this  special  sense  he 
loves  to  use  it.^  Other  broader  meanings  with  him  are  ancient 
stories  in  general  *  and  a  fiction  as  falsehood.^ 

Our  author  professes  a  becoming  modesty  in  regard  to  his 
knowledge  of  the  drama.®  He  can  only  indicate  his  preferences 
and  beliefs,  and  among  these  we  have  seen  the  high  estimate 
which  he  places  on  the  dramatists,  as  the  first  of  the  poets,  the 
masters  of  passions.'^  Again,  this  is  the  only  genre  in  which 
the  moderns  have  equaled  the  ancients,  perhaps  because  it  is 
rather  an  advantage  to  have  disposed  of  the  old  mythological 
machinery,  as  unsuited  to  the  movement  and  action  of  drama. ^ 
Historically,  he  considers  that  the  origin  of  the  play  was  in  "  la 
joie  des  vendanges.''  ^  The  interval  from  the  ancients  to  the 
moderns  he  regards,  as  usual,  a  barren  w^aste  :  ^^ 

"Nous  faisions  des  pieces  de  theatre  avant  Corneille  et  Rotrou.  Nous  les 
aurions  faites  tou jours  aussi  mauvaises,  si  les  ouvrages  des  Grecs  n'avaient  eclair^ 
les  dramatistes."  ^^ 

The  French  came  slowly  to  Venceslas  and  the  Cid  in  comparison 
to    the    rapidity   with    which    the    Greeks    reached  excellence.^^ 

iLittr^,  s.  V.  4°. 

'vii,    132 — Such  a  passage    as  this    represents    his  nearest    approach   to   a 
conception  of  poetry. 
3  VII,  144  ;  P.&F.,  II,  144,  287,  298.  'P.  &  F.,  ii,  205. 

sp.  &  F.,  II,  195,  258.     Cf.  the  colloquial  English. 

*  ''  Je  n'ai  pas  une  grande  connaissance  sur  les  choses  du  theatre,"  vii,  314. 
'i,  426.     Quoted  sup.,  p.  107.  ^F.  &  F,  i,  225.  ^vii,  170. 

"Cf.  sup.,  p.  71.  ^Woy.,  II,  374-5. 

i^P.  &F.,i,  229,  cf.,  sup.,  p.  59. 


1- 


114  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

Another  modern  advantage  is  that  the  plays  to-day  seem  more 
virtuous,  and  Montesquieu  can  return  benefited  from  a  spectacle, 
where  an  ancient  would  have  lamented  his  corruption.^  As  a 
usual  thing,  morality  ^  is  demanded  by  an  audience : 

"  Les  homines,  fripons  en  detail,  sont  en  gros  de  tr^  honn^tes  gens  ;  ils  airaent 
la  morale  ;  et  si  je  ne  traitais  pas  un  sujet  si  grave,  je  dirais  que  cela  se  voit 
admirablement  bien  sur  les  theatres  :  on  est  sdr  de  plaire  au  peuple  par  les 
sentiments  que  la  morale  avoue,  et  on  est  stir  de  le  choquer  par  ceux  qu'elle 
reprouve."  ^ 

Among  the  characteristics  and  requisites  of  the  drama,  he 
readily  includes  the  three  unities,  which,  he  explains,  mutually 
suppose  one  another."^  The  unity  of  place  requires  that  of  time, 
much  more  time  being  needed  for  transportation  to  another  place ; 
these  two  require  a  unity  of  action,  for  in  a  limits  time  and 
space  there  can  only  be  one  principal  action.  He  agrees,  too, 
that  a  play  should  have  five  acts,^  because,  according  to  his  friend 
Conti,  everything  should  have  a  beginning,  a  middle  and  an  end, 
and  a  link  between  each  stage." 

His  old  principles  of  curiosity  and  surprise  are  invoked  to 
account  for  the  suspension  of  interest  in  the  tramej  It  is  con- 
sidered a  harder  thing  to  make  good  dialogue  ^  for  women  than  for 
men,  the  latter  requiring  only  book-knowledge,  while  the  former 
demands  "P usage  du  monde  et  des  biens^ances."  ^  Proper  charac- 
terization, indeed,  is  a  most  difficult  thing,  especially  now  that  the 
great  types  have  been  taken.^"  '^11  n^a  qu'une  trentaine  de  bons 
caract^res,  de  caracteres  marques.'^  He  lists  these,  evidently 
after  Moli^re  and  his  colleagues,  as :  "  le  Medecin,  le  Marquis, 
le  Joueur,  la  Coquette,  le  Jaloux,  I'Avare,  le  Misanthrope,  le 
Bourgeois."  Our  sympathy  or  aversion  for  personages,  in  comedy 
particularly,  is  an  important  point  and  should  be  managed  with 
consistency." 

Wii,  161-2.  Though  our  moral  authors  would  still  proscribe  the  theatre — V, 
163. 

'Apparently  the  melodramatic  morality.  ^  v,  161,  cf.  sup.,  p.  37. 

*P.  <fe  F.,  n,  20.  'P.  &  R,  II,  92.  ^Voy.,  i,  307. 

'  VII,  146.  ^Eeferring  to  Shakespeare.     Cf.  inf.,  p.  151. 

« vn,  184,  i»P.  &  F.,  II,  20-1,  "  vii,  146. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  115 

A  comedian  should  be  careful  to  throw  his  countenance  into 
the  proper  expression  just  before  reciting  his  lines ;  for  these  are 
only  the  effect  of  the  antecedent  new  passions.^  A  comedy,  in 
Rica's  opinion,  may  take  place  rather  in  the  audience  than  on  the 
stage.^  The  spectators,  at  the  Franpais,^  are  themselves  on  exhi- 
bition, as  languishing  lovers,  costumed  actresses,  or  what  not. 
He  satirizes  in  this  connection  the  society  farce  of  the  foyer  and 
of  the  petits-maitres.  Comedies  should  express  rather  the  ridicu- 
lousness of  manners  than  of  passions,  for  passions  in  themselves 
are  not  ridiculous.^  Nor  is  it  so  important  that  an  actor  should 
say  funny  things  as  that  he  should  represent  really  a  ridiculous 
character.^  Sometimes  the  laughable  element  arises  from  seeing  a 
personage  in  a  situation  opposed  to  his  character,  as  a  woman  in 
straits,  a  grave  man  in  a  foolish  position,  an  old  man  deceived.^ 
In  extending  this  conception  Montesquieu  comes  very  near  to 
admitting  horse-play. 

Tragedy  is  his  real  passion ; ''  and  the  real  passion  of  tragedy 
is  terror.^  In  his  own  age,  good  tragedies  were  an  exhausted 
mine.^ 

History  is  the  only  large  department  spared  in  Rica's  denuncia- 
tion of  books.  ^^  He  does  not  extol  its  study  or  its  utility ;  but  he 
allows  it  to  pass  with  a  majestic  and  panoramic  survey  of  the 
course  of  empire  in  various  nations.  Our  author  is  quick  to  see 
the  vital  points  which  make  or  mar  historical  writing.  As  a  pure 
literary  genre,  he  remarks  that  it  has  been  handled  by  a  certain 
class  of  authors,  who  seek  simply  to  be  agreeable  and  amusing. ^^ 
These  select  for  treatment  one  special  point  or  phase  of  history, 
like  a  revolution,  writing  with  a  unity  of  action  which  pleases  the 
reader  as  a  tragedy,  and  economizes  his  attention.  This  species 
turns  from  the  fatiguing  uninteresting  facts  with  which  dry 
chronicles  are  burdened.     But  he  believes  too,  without  reaching 

ip.  &  F.,  11,  78-9.  2  j^  121-2.  ^  Cf.  on  the  Opera,  sup.,  p.  76. 

*vn,  162.  sp.  &  P.,  II,  21.  6  VII,  145-6. 

Wii,  161;  P.  &F.,  II,  56. 

®  VII,  161— After  Aristotle  ;  or  after  Plato,  it  may  give  horror  {P.  &  F-,  n,  20). 

8P.  &  P.,  II,  20.  i°i,  422 ff.  i^P.  &  P.,  I,  27, 


116  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

the  full  coDcept,  that  the  study  of  history  must  be  philosophic.^ 
Some  idea  of  comparative  history  may  be  found  in  his  plea  for 
allowing  to  each  age  its  own  ideas. ^ 

A  notion  of  the  history  which  concerns  itself  with  the  life  of 
the  people  is  to  be  found  in  his  objection  to  the  Greek  historians, 
that  they  give  no  glimpse  of  Grecian  manners  and  laws. — ''  C'est 
comme  si  nous  voulions  trouver  les  notres  en  lisant  les  guerres  de 
Louis  XIV."  ^  It  may  be  that  the  ancient  histories  generally 
yield  to  the  modern,  in  that  our  development  of  political  art 
makes  them  "plus  belles."''  The  mediaeval  historians,  those  of 
.  the  Church  and  the  Popes  have  an  effect  which  is  frequently  the 
reverse  of  edifying.-^  The  English  have  the  advantage  of  showing 
the  progress  of  liberty.^ 

The  French  school,  from  jealousy  or  conviction,  he  singles  out 
for  special  condemnation.  Some  have  too  much  erudition  for 
genius,  and  others  too  much  genius  for  their  erudition/  They 
are  often  blinded  by  prejudice  or  partiality ;  ^  their  particular 
systems  are  their  ruin ;  ^  they  will  twist  facts  for  their  theory  and 
select,  from  the  msss  of  data,  those  which  they  need  to  display 
their  own  ideas  and  sentiments  :  ^^ 

''Toute  I'histoire  en  corps  n'est-elle  pas  un  monument  de  I'aveuglement  de  nos 
p^res  £l  cet  dgard?  Pour  moi,  j'aimerais  mieux  ne  point  ^crire  d'histoire  que  d'en 
^crire  pour  suivre  les  prdjugds  et  les  passions  du  temps.  .  . 

"On  ne  fait  pas  un  systeime  aprds  avoir  lu  I'histoire  ;  mais  on  commence  par  le 
syst^me,  et  on  cherche  ensuite  les  preuves." 

But  the  bitterest  word  yet  on  the  French  historians  is  : 

"  Ut,  sicut  prima  aetas  vidit  quid  ultimum  in  libertate  esset,  ita  nos  quod  in 
servitute."  ^^ 

Subserviency  and  falsehood  in  history  have  perhaps  been  further 
advanced    by  the    invention    of  printing.^^     Formerly  a  writer, 

^  Especially  for  princes  ( vii,  414) — For  restrictions  on  this  method,  in  so  far  as 
it  is  theoretical,  cf.  following  page. 

^v,  448  ;  P.  &F.,  ii,  191 ;  cf.  swp.,  p.  52.  ^yu,  160-1. 

*  VII,  179.  ^i^  422.  «i,  423. 

'  VII,  163.  His  criticisms  here  usually  have  an  oblique  reference  to  Dubos  and 
Boulainvilliers,  to  whom  he  pays  his  compliments  in  the  E.  L.     Cf.  inf.,  p.  147. 

sp.  &  R,  II,  193.  8  V,  448.  i"P.  &  R,  ii,  251. 

"P.  &  R,  II,  250.  i2p^  &  R,  II,  193-4. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  117 

being  little  heard,  could  cry  his  loudest  and  his  best;  but  now 
his  necessary  circulation,  the  establishment  of  a  censorship,  and 
the  fear  of  offending  the  powers  that  be  tend  to  a  disguisal  of  the 
truth.  An  upright  historian,  whose  pen  is  not  venal,  is  subject 
to  a  thousand  persecutions.^ 

This  impatience  with  his  predecessors  may  account  for  his 
judgment  on  histories  in  the  large  as  "des  faits  faux  composes 
sur  des  faits  vrais,  ou  bien  a  ^occasion  des  vrais ; "  ^  and  for  that 
other  opinion  that,  "on  trouve  dans  les  histoires  les  hommes 
peints  en  beau,  et  on  ne  les  trouve  pas  tels  qu'on  les  voit."  ^ 

In  regard  to  the  criticism  of  sources,  a  point  where  in  practice 
he  has  so  often  been  accused  of  failing,^  he  would  seem  at  least 
in  doctrine  to  recognise  the  importance  of  the  principle.  He 
says,  for  instance,  that  when  we  are  looking  for  something  in 
antiquity,  we  must  be  very  careful  lest  our  authorities  themselves, 
from  the  influence  of  the  personal  equation,  have  departed  a  little 
from  the  truth.^ 

Montesquieu,  when  in  a  happy  mood,  likes  old  chronicles, 
"  pour  temperer  les  biens  et  les  maux."  ^  The  writers  of  memoirs 
suffer  from  the  same  complaint  as  historians  and  authors  in 
general ;  only  here  it  is  themselves  and  not  all  men  whom  they 
would  represent  in  a  favorable  attitude.  They  are  "si  visible- 
ment  vains  qu'il  est  impossible  quails  soient  vrais.  lis  ont  tout 
fait  dans  la  guerre  et  dans  les  affaires."  ^  Yet  recent  memoirs,^ 
especially  of  the  minority  of  Louis  XIV,  are  certainly  enormously 
popular  to-day.^ 

Concerning  letter- writing,  he  has  only  two  curt  observations. 
If  their  writers  had  reduced  their  long  compliments  and  the 
petty  details  of  their  day,  "ils  auraient  vu  leurs  ouvrages 
s'evanouir."  ^"^  I  have  quoted  his  remark  as  to  the  passing  of  the 
epistolary  style  from  the  hands  of  pedants  to  those  of  the  gens 
du  monde}^ 


1 1,  464.  2yjj^  174  3  yji^  177^  ^f.  swp.,  p.  93. 

*Cf.  inf.,  p.  200.  sp.  &  R,  II,  190.  «  vii,  377. 

"P.  &  R,  II,  193.  8  Excellent  emetics  (i,  457).  »i,  348. 

^0  r,  52.     This  is  d  propos  of  the  L.  P. ,  where  he  claims  to  have  followed  his 
precept.  ,^1*.  &  R,  ii,  49.     Cf.  sup.,  p.  87. 


118  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

The  satire  and  the  epigram  may  be  considered  together,  the 
first  being  connected  in  his  mind  with  criticism,  and  both  being 
characterized  by  that  espritj  which  we  have  seen  to  be  one  of  his 
chief  preoccupations.^  Is  it  satire  purely  or  destructive  criticism 
which  he  condemns  as  "  cette  fureur  de  juger,  cette  honte  de  ne 
pas  decider,  cet  air  de  m^pris  sur  tout  ce  qu'on  ne  connait  pas, 
cette  envie  de  ravaler  tout  ce  qui  se  trouve  trop  haut  ?  "  ^  Again, 
he  denounces — 

"  cette  fureur  pour  la  satire  qui  a  fait  multiplier  parmi  nous  les  Merits  de  cette 
espece,  qui  produisent  deux  sortes  de  mauvais  effets,  en  d^courageant  les  talents  de 
ceux  qui  en  ont,  et  en  produisant  la  malice  stupide  de  ceux  qui  n'en  ont  pas.  De 
la  ce  ton  continuel  ^  qui  consiste  k  tourner  en  ridicule  les  choses  bonnes  et  m^me 
les  vertueuses." 

The  really  great  satire,  like  that  of  Aristophanes,  is  no  more. 
The  usual  satire  dies,  while  the  work  which  it  attacks  still  lives/ 
Satire  can  be  usefully  employed  as  a  weapon,  for  example,  against 
fanaticism,  but  it  is  only  "  pour  le  bien  des  hommes  que  Pon  pent 
faire  usage  de  la  malignite  humaine."  A  combat  won  in  this  way 
proves  nothing,  "  parce  qu^me  plaisanterie  n'est  pas  une  raison."  * 

A  "  mauvais  naturel "  seeks  a  too  frequent  repetition  in  satiri- 
cal traits.^  Only  two  pedants,  Boileau  and  Juvenal,  have  written 
satires  on  women — a  subject  in  which,  worthless  as  it  is,  Horace 
would  have  succeeded  far  better. 

In  ancient  Rome,  punishment  was  meted  out  to  satirists  and 
libellists.'^  In  despotic  states,  where  oppression  and  ignorance 
together  take  away  the  talent  and  the  will  for  such  writing,  satires 
are  hardly  known. ^  Among  the  English,  what  with  the  spectacle 
of  society  and  the  disposition  to  retreat  from  life,  "leurs  Merits 
satiriques  seraient  sanglants,  et  Ton  verrait  bien  des  Juvenals 
chez  eux,  avant  d' avoir  trouv^  un  Horace.'^  ^ 

He  thinks  it  a  mistake,  in  practical  life,  to  hasard  apoph- 
thegms ;  ^^  but  he  shows  certainly  a  well-marked  favor  for  the 

^Cf.  sup.,  p.  89.  ^P.  &F.,i,  276. 

*  *'  Si  commun  dans  notre  nation,"  Ibid.,  p.  277.         ^E.  g.  Virgil  and  Horace, 
sp.  &F.,i,  277-8. 

«P.  &  F.,  II,  52.  Cf.  VII,  63— **  Quel  triste  talent  que  celui  de  savoir  dechirer 
les  hommes.  "^  m,  254.  ^iv,  83.  »iv,  356. 


The  Aesthetic  Dodrine  of  Montesquieu.  119 

epigram.  The  quality  of  naivete,  which  he  has  ascribed  to  so 
many  things,  even  to  esprit,^  may  add  to  the  epigram  as  well.^ 
Surprise  is  also  an  element.  He  approves  of  a  certain  "belle 
r^ponse,  parce  qu'elle  est  contradictoire  a  celle  que  Ton  attend.''  ^ 
He  recognises,  in  quoting/  that  the  surprise  and  the  sting  are 
in  the  tail,  and  that  here  brevity  is  the  soul  of  wit.^  Yet  "  tout 
ne  doit  pas  finir  en  epigramme."  ® 

As  a  poetic  form,  the  epigram  was  unknown  until  Martial, 
the  Greeks  being  ignorant  of  the  acute  dictum^  and  writing  only 
inscriptions.^  It  is  a  form  in  which  every  word  counts,  as  he 
well  illustrates.^  He  approves  the  opinion  that  the  pentameter 
and  hexameter  verse  "  attirent  n^cessairement  T^pigramme  ; "  ^ 
with  which  he  leaves  the  subject. 

''Dans  les  critiques,  il  faut  s' aider,  non  pas  se  detruire  ;  chercher  le  vrai,  le 
bon,  le  beau  ;  dclairer  ou  refldchir  (reflechir  et  rendre)  la  lumiere  par  sa  nature  ; 
n'^clipser  que  par  hazard."  ^^ 

In  such  clear  and  decisive  words  does  Montesquieu  give  his  voice 
for  the  criticism  which  enlightens  as  opposed  to  the  criticism 
which  destroys ;  an  opinion  quite  in  accord  with  his  previous 
condemnation  of  satire,  of  pedantry  and  of  narrow  dogmatism. 
He  illustrates  and  emphasizes  his  distinction  in  his  mention  of 
the  Academy's  Critique  sur  le  Cid,  "critique  severe  mais  char- 
mante  !  .  .  .  c'est  1^  que  Ton  voit  la  louange  des  beaut^s  si  pres 
de  la  critique  des  defauts."  ^^ 

Criticism  ^^  is  not  a  profession  to  which  a  man  should  abandon 
himself.^^  Posterity  attaches  a  certain  scorn  to  works  of  this 
class,  be  their  sponsor  even  a  Cato.^*  There  is,  however,  an  art 
of  criticism,  and  when  one  would  abandon  himself  thereto,  when 
he  would  direct  the  taste  or  the  judgment  of  the  public,  he  must 
consider  whether,  after  all,  he  has  the  fortune  to  agree  with  those 

1  Cf.  mp.,  p.  92.  2p_  cfe  F.,  II,  22.  ^P.  &  F.,  ii,  284. 

*  VII,  129.  ^P.  &F.,  II,  42.     Cf.  the  examples  from  Florus,  vii,  121-2. 

^P.  &F.,  II,  42.  The  "  Qu'il  mourtit  !  "  of  the  old  Horace  shows  the  brevity 
without  the  wit.  ''  The  literal  sense  of  the  word,  of  course. 

sp.  &  R,  II,  15-16,  9P.  <fe  F,  II,  41.  lop.  &  F,  II,  26. 

"P.  &  P.,  II,  50.         12  Evidently  in  the  pejorative  sense.        "P.  <&  F,  ii,  26. 
i*If  he  is  a  Maevius,  his  ecrits  injurieux  are  doomed  to  oblivion  (Ibid.,  p.  41). 


120  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

popular  verdicts  sealed  by  time.^  For,  in  the  long  run,  these 
verdicts  will  hold  ;  and  if  you  dissent,  if  you  have  only  extra- 
ordinary opinions,  "  vous  n'^tes  pas  propre  pour  la  critique."  ^ 

Esoteric  standards  are  then  practically  valueless.  Nor  is  this 
all.  It  would  seem  that  really  good  authors  need  no  bush,  no 
criticism  or  corrective.^  No  words  are  too  strong  to  excoriate 
that  criticism  which  consists  in  disdain  and  intolerance,  in  unfair- 
ness and  cavilling.  The  worst  type  is  the  ignorant  wretch  who 
can  sustain  life  only  by  selling  his  insults  to  the  book  trade; 
whose  works  are  read  only  for  their  malicious  stings ;  whose 
acquaintance  no  one  will  avow  and  whose  vileness  justice  must 
overtake.'' 

The  third  part  of  the  Defense  contains  generalizations  on  criti- 
cism which  were  largely  inspired  by  the  reception  the  Esprit  des 
Lois  had  met  with  from  the  Jansenist  journal.*  No  argument, 
he  says,  will  hold,  which  makes  a  good  book  seem  bad,  or  a  bad 
book  good,  which  confounds  the  ideas  and  standards  of  the 
different  sciences.^  Nor  is  it  fair  to  employ  arguments  which 
attack  science  itself."  Knowledge  of  the  thing  treated  and  of  its 
authorities  is  essential.  The  principle  of  fairness  to  the  author 
is  dwelt  upon.  It  is  not  right  to  read  into  him  ideas  which  he 
has  not  put  down.  His  visible  words  are  the  only  test.  It  is  a 
mistake  gratuitously  to  attribute  evil  thoughts  and  intentions  to 
him.^  Elsewhere,^  Montesquieu  maintains  that  it  is  unjust  to 
suppose  offhand  that  the  author  has  not  seen  and  provided  for 
the  contradictions  of  which  he  might  be  hastily  accused ;  that  a 
critic  must  be  sure  he  holds  the  entire  system,  the  central  object 
of  the  whole  machinery,  before  he  remarks  on  small  wheels  that 
turn  in  opposite  directions.     And  that  the  criticism  on  the  great 

Ubid.,  p.  26.  'Cf.  Ibid.,  p.  28  and  sup.  p.  47. 

^P.  &  F.,  II,  27. — This,  at  least,  I  take  to  be  the  meaning  of  "  A  mesure  qu'on 
a  phis  exige  des  auteurs,  on  a  moins  exig^  des  critiques." 

*  P.  &  F.,  II,  28. — The  personal  animus  which  our  author  would  repudiate 
seems  prominent  in  this. 

^The  Nouvelles  Ecclesiastiques,  9  and  16  October,  1749.  «vi,  196-7. 

'  That  is,  allow  the  genre.     Cf.  P.  &  F.,  ii,  27  and  sup.  p.  85. 

8  Also  VI,  198. 

»P  <fe  F.,  II,  25.     Still  with  palpable  reference  to  the  E.  L. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  121 

Corneille  which  allowed  first  for  the  duty  it  owed  him  stands 
as  a  model  of  its  kind.^ 

The  critic/s  task  is  as  easy  as  the  original  author's  is  difficult, 
since  the  former  has  all  the  advantage  of  choosing  the  point  of 
attack.^  "  II  n'y  a  rien  de  si  ais6  que  de  d6truire  les  sentiments 
des  autres.''  ^  Critics  are  eternally  contrasting  an  author's  charac- 
ter with  his  works  and  making  suchlike  reflections,  "  parce  qu'on 
les  pent  faire  sans  essayer  beaucoup  son  esprit."  *  In  which 
connection,  Montesquieu  makes  the  old  slur  that  ten  thousand 
men  can  easily  criticize  what  they  cannot  themselves  create.*^ 
This  class  of  writing  merits  little  indulgence  when  it  shows  as 
an  ostentation  of  superiority  over  others  and  a  source  of  human 
pride.^  Of  all  genres  "  elle  est  celui  dans  lequel  il  est  plus 
difficile  de  montrer  un  bon  naturel."  It  not  infrequently  has  its 
root  in  jealousy  ^  and  its  impulse  in  iconoclasm.^ 

The  writing  of  such  corbeaux  has  two  evil  effects ;  it  spoils  the 
reasoning  power  of  readers  by  causing  them  to  take  good  for  ill 
and  vice  versa  ;  and  it  leaves  no  weapons  to  attack  the  really  bad 
works,  "de  sorte  que  le  public  n'a  plus  de  r^gle  pour  les  dis- 
tinguer."  ^  For  he  fully  recognises  that,  too  numerous  as  they 
are,^^  too  prone  to  employ  against  things  that  warmth  which  is 
needed  only  to  paint  things,"  destructive  critics  have  yet  their 
usefulness  in  certain  directions.  A  bad  work  by  a  celebrated 
author  must  be  unveiled  for  the  benefit  of  knowledge.^^  His 
objection  to  the  flimsy  journaux  is  exactly  that  they  make  no 
attempt  to  criticize.^^  Authors  cannot  judge  themselves,  because 
"  s'ils  eussent  cru  une  phrase  mauvaise,  ils  ne  Pauraient  pas 
mise  ; "  ^^  after  which  the  natural  demand  would  be  for  some  one 
to  judge  them.  If  he  urges  harmony  and  general  forbearance 
in  the  Academy,  it  is  because  criticism  has  a  thousand  other 
battlefields.'" 

ip.  &  F.,  II,  50.     Cf.  sup.  p.  52.  2yj^  198^  sp^  ^  p^^  „^  483. 

*  I,  51-2.  ^R&K,  11,57.  6  VII,  198.  Vii,  478-9. 

8  VII,  432.  « VI,  199.  wvii,  162.  "  vii,  432. 

12  V,  452— Quoted  swp.,  p.  97.  ^H,  343. 

**P.  &  F.y  II,  156.  And  authors  of  criticisms,  fearing  to  be  hoisted  with  their 
own  petard,  "sont  comme  ce  peintre  qui,  ayant  peint  un  coq,  d^fendait  a  ses 
apprentis  de  laisser  approcher  les  coqs  de  son  tableau."    (Ibid.)  ^^vii,  447. 


122  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

The  real  aim  of  criticism,  however,  as  indicated  in  the  last 
paragraphs  of  his  discussion,^  is  primarily  neither  destructive  nor 
dogmatic.  The  first  kind,  as  applied  especially  by  his  theological 
enemies,  becomes  a  thing  which  limits  the  scope  and  "  la  somme 
du  g^nie  national."  Theology  cannot  be  the  criterion  to  bound 
all  the  sciences,  any  more  than  the  principles  of  geometry  will 
apply  in  taste.^     Dogmatism  is  peculiarly  dangerous — 

*'Rien  n'^touffe  plus  la  doctrine  que  de  mettre  ^  toutes  les  choses  une  robe  de 
docteur  :  les  gens  qui  veulent  toujours  enseigner,  emp6chent  beaucoup  d'appren- 
dre  ;  il  n'y  a  point  de  g^nie  qu'on  ne  r^tr^cisse,  lorsqu'on  I'enveloppera  d'un 
million  de  scrupules  vains." 

Follows  the  fine  passage  on  the  repressive  effect  of  such  pedantry.^ 
Criticisms  should  not  be  considered  as  personal  attacks  until 
we  are  forced  so  to  regard  them.  It  is  quite  permissible  to  criti- 
cize works  given  to  the  public ;  for  those  who  seek  to  enlighten 
others  should  surely  seek  to  be  enlightened  themselves,  and 
"  ceux  qui  nous  avertissent  sont  les  compagnons  de  nos  travaux." 
This  last  Ste-Beuve  calls  a  fine  saying,  "  devise  et  louange  dc  la 
vrai  critique.''  ^  Finally,  if  the  author  and  the  critic  are  alike 
seeking  truth,  they  have  a  common  interest  and  cannot  be 
enemies.^ 

Montesquieu  has  endeavored,  he  declares,  to  make  his  own 
criticism  largely  appreciative.  Since  he  has  read,  so  far  as 
possible,  only  the  best  authors,®  he  gives  his  opinion  usually  on 
those  whom  he  esteems.     "  Je  loue  plus  que  je  ne  critique.''  "^ 

As  to  the  President  and  his  own  critics,  several  things  may  be 
observed.  Ste-Beuve  has  declared,  "  il  toit  des  plus  sensibles  h 
la  critique,"  ^  which  seems  true  with  qualifications.  Montesquieu 
admits  that  he  has  been  tormented  all  his  life  by  "ces  petits 
beaux-esprits  qui  m'ont  rompu  la  t^te  de  ce  qu'ils  out  mal  lu 
et  de  ce  qu'ils  n'ont  pas  lu."  ^  But  he  speaks  more  indifferently 
elsewhere  of  *'  quelques  frelons  qui  bourdonnent  autour  de  moi," 

Wifense,  S^e  partie,  vi,  202-3.  ^Quot^^j  g^p^^  p,  50. 

^Quoted  in  extenso,  swp.,  p.  53.  *  C.  de  L.,  xiii,  148.       ^vii,  203. 

«Cf.  sup.  p.  94.  'P.  &F.,i,  37-8.  ^C.deL.,  vii,  80. 

»P.  <fe  F.,  I,  38. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  123 

which  buzzing  he  does  not  mind,  if  the  bees  get  honey  from  his 
toil/  His  editor  remarks  that  superficial  criticisms  caused  him 
irritation ;  ^  so  did  those  written  with  malice  aforethought ;  and 
more  especially  those  directed  against  his  whole  manner  of  being 
and  individuality.  The  Jansenists  have  wished  him  to  make  an 
Esprit  des  Lois  according  to  their  own  plan  and  containing  mainly 
the  things  theological  with  which  they  are  concerned.^  Their 
objections  are  in  their  heads  and  not  in  his  book/  To  another 
caviller  he  retorts  :  "  mon  intention  a  6t§  de  faire  mon  ouvrage  et 
non  pas  le  sien."  ^  The  "  infinite  de  mauvaises  critiques  sur  mon 
Esprit  des  Lois  "  were  written  by  men  who  did  not  wish  to  under- 
stand him,  that  they  might  have  a  free  field  for  declaiming — an 
easy  sort  of  triumph.^ 

He  has  preferred  to  keep  silent  when  attacked,  both  from 
scorn,  and  because  he  believes  that  calumnies  will  return  to  the 
address  of  the  calumniator/  "  Mon  principe  a  et^  de  ne  point 
me  remettre  sur  les  rangs  avec  des  gens  m^prisables."  ^ 

In  regard  to  individuals,  it  is  true  that  he  contemptuously 
dismisses  the  Sorbonne,^  and  puts  it  on  a  par  with  the  "  declama- 
tions et  fureurs  "  of  the  Nouvelliste  EccUsiastique  ;  ^°  it  is  true  that 
the  preceding  philippic  against  distorting  an  author's  meaning  ^^ 
was  aimed  at  the  Journal  de  Tr^voux,^'^  and  the  paragraph  on 
allowing  for  contradictions  in  view  of  a  possible  system  ^^  is  his 
reply  to  de  La  Porte/'*  He  likewise  showed  some  acrimony  in 
dealing  with  Yoltaire,^^  notably  in  the  response,  "  II  a  trop 
d'esprit  pour  m' entendre/'  ^® 

1 VII,  329. 

2P.  &  F.,  I,  Preface,  XV.  It  is  perhaps  hardly  fair  to  quote  the  carefully 
erased  passage  in  which  he  makes  his  bitterest  retort — "Sur  quelques  petits 
auteurs  qui  me  critiquaient,  je  dis :  Je  suis  un  grand  chene  au  pied  duquel  les 
crapauds  viennent  jeter  leur  venin"  (Ibid.,  p.  36). 

3  VI,  196.  *  VII,  397.  syii^  386. 

«P.  &F.,i,  36.  •'VII,  404. 

8  VII,  405,  cf.  VII,  385— "Depuis  le  futile  de  la  Porte  jusqu'au  pesant  Dupin, 
je  ne  vois  rien  qui  ait  assez  de  poids  pour  m^riter  que  je  r^ponde  aux  critiques." 

9  VII,  197.  i»  VII,  386.  ">SV,  P-120. 
^^P.  &  F.,  II,  27.  13  ;sup.,  p.  120.  ^*P.  &  P.,  II,  25. 
15 Cf.  inf.,  p.  144.                        ^^\u,  397. 


124  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

But  this  is  only  one  side  of  the  medal.  Again  and  again  in 
his  letters,  he  invites  criticism  from  his  friends  and  approves  it 
from  strangers.  He  profits  by  the  strictures  of  Mme.  de  Mirepoix 
and  admires  her  taste ;  ^  he  requests  corrections  from  Mme. 
d'Aiguillon ;  ^  he  gives  Guasco  liberty  to  judge  and  criticize ; ' 
he  congratulates  Grosley  on  his  objections  and  his  knowledge,^ 
and  replies  with  good  humor  to  his  points ;  ^  he  thinks  Gerdil 
meritorious;^  he  is  enchanted  with  Bertolini — "Je  m'y  trouve 
par6  com  me  dans  un  jour  de  f§te ;  "  ^  and  he  thanks  Risteau  for 
his  "  ^loges  flatteurs."  ^  In  general,  he  is  willing  to  admit  a 
difference  of  opinion  on  small  points,^  though  he  objects  when 
Vernet,  unsolicited,  corrects  his  French. ^'^  This  last  seems  to  give 
the  clue  to  the  situation  :  among  friends  and  fair-minded  critics 
he  is  perfectly  willing  to  allow  minor  dissent  and  corrections,  if 
there  is  agreement  on  main  issues ;  but  those  who  largely 
condemn,  misunderstand  or  misconstrue  his  position,  especially  if 
acrimony  is  added,  arouse  his  indignation  and  his  scorn.  Which 
seems,  on  the  whole,  neither  an  unnatural  nor  an  unreasonable 
attitude.    IncW^i. 

•6. 
Ancients  and  Moderns. 

The  unique  importance  of  this  subject  at  the  time  of  Monte- 
squieu's writing  has  made  it  seem  worth  while  to  devote  to  it  a 
section.  Many  correspondences  will  be  found  between  the  present 
treatment  and  that  outlined,  more  purely  as  a  matter  of  principle, 
under  Classicism  and  Individualism."  I  shall  still  reserve  for 
the  next  section  the  authors  separately  discussed,  contrasting 
here  the  two  broad  types  of  the  old  and  the  new  order  of  writers. 

At  the  outset,  Montesquieu  is  quick  to  declare  that  the  aca- 
demic Quarrel  does  not  concern  him,  that  he  is  impartial  in  the 
matter,  and  esteems  equally  both  the  ancients  and  the  moderns, — 

»vn,,264.  2yjj^423.  ^yu^  273.  *vii,  396- 

6  VII,  334.  «vn,  397.  "^vii,  442.  «vii,  375. 

syn,  344.  ^"vii,  296.  ^^  Cf.  mp.,  p.  48. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  125 

"  Je  n'ai  aucune  predilection  pour  les  ouvrages  anciens  ou  nouveaux,  et  toutes 
les  disputes  a  cet  egard  ne  rae  prouvent  autre  chose  si  ce  n'est  qu'il  y  a  de  tres 
bons  ouvrages,  et  parmi  les  anciens,  et  parmi  les  modernes."  ^ 

This  absolute  statement,  however,  must  be  taken  with  a  grain 
of  salt.  There  is  abundant  testimony  to  show  which  way  the 
balance  leaned  for  him.  There  is  the  general  observation  that 
we  have  no  right  to  prefer  new  books  until  we  know  the  old.^ 
There  is  the  specific  and  direct  avowal  of  his  preference  for 
the  ancients — 

"J'avoue  mon  goiut  pour  les  anciens;  cette  antiquity  m'enchante,  et  je  suis 
tou jours  pret  a  dire  avec  Pline :  C'est  a  Athdnes  que  vous  allez,  respectez  les 
dieux."  2 

Again,  he  has  always  had  a  decided  taste  for  the  ancients,^  he  has 
admired  some  criticisms  against  them,  but  he  has  admired  them 
most ;  and  he  thinks  his  taste  may  be  justified.^ 

As  Sorel  has  finely  observed,^  it  is  only  in  antiquity  that  the 
President  finds  poetry,  that  he  himself  reveals  some  poetic  impulse.'^ 
Accordingly,  at  Paphos,  Ovid  and  TibuUus  may  rank  with  Ana- 
creon  and  Sappho ;  "  mais  entre  les  vers  du  siecle  d'Ovide  et  ceux 
de  notre  temps,  les  Graces  judicieuses  ont  laisse  I'espace  de  bien 
des  livres.^'  ^ 

New  books  may  be  good  for  readers ;  the  ancient  are  for 
authors.^  Theirs  was  the  superiority  in  point  of  bon  sens,  in 
purity  of  style.^*^  For  their  present  dominance,  the  rules  of  the 
Greek  tragedians  are  still  unsurpassed  and  unchangeable.^^ 

He  has  the  humanistic  evaluation  of  antiquity  when  he  affirms, 
"je  suis  naturellement  curieux  de  tons  les  fragments  des  ouvrages 

^P.  &  F.,i,  38  ;  cf.  P.  &  F.,  ii,  29,  where  he  likes  the  Quarrel,  as  proving  the 
same  thing.  ^  j^  343 

^  VII,  158.  This  heads  the  first  of  two  sections,  ''Des  Anciens  ;  Des  Modernes," 
in  the  Pensees  diverges.  They  include  fragmentary  remarks,  largely  on  individuals, 
rather  than  a  raisonne  account  of  the  matter,  and  it  has  seemed  as  well  to  dispose 
of  such  scattered  utterances  as  the  order  of  our  arrangement  calls  for  them.  For 
Antiquity,  cf.  sup.,  p.  11. 

*vn,  159.  ^Ct  mp.,^.47.  ^MmL,  ^.  21. 

^Cf.  sup.,  p.  113.  «vii,  467.  9  VII,  159. 

^°P.  &  F. ,  II,  46.  These  are,  however,  merely  casual  generalizations,  with  real 
reference  to  one  special  case.  "  vii,  150.     Cf .  sup. ,  p.  49. 


126  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquim. 

des  anciens  auteurs ; "  ^  when  he  would  have  a  catalogue  made  of 
all  the  lost  books  cited  by  the  ancients.^  He  has  the  poetic 
evaluation  when  he  regrets  "cet  air  riant '^  which  marked  the 
antique  world,  that  ^^  simplicity  de  moeurs,  naivete  de  la  nature,"  * 
even  that  taste  for  the  marvellous,  which  however,  might  be 
criticised — 

*'Ce  qui  frappe  le  plus  chez  les  anciens  auteurs,  c'est  que  leurs  Episodes  se 
ressemblent  presque  toutes." 

These  oracles  and  enUvementSy  this  conquering  of  monsters,  etc.,  form 
always  the  same  adventures  under  different  names/ 

The  ancients,  it  has  been  remarked,  were  sufficiently  salacious.^ 
It  is  a  poor  reproach  to  tax  them  with  glorifying  merely  the 
physical  strength  of  heroes,  since  it  is  in  nature  that  the  body 
should  excite  admiration  and  move  to  the  marvellous.®  It  is  also 
unfair  to  insist  on  a  circumstantial  comparison  between  the 
modern  and  ancient  poets,  which  latter  "d^crivent  les  moeurs 
et  les  costumes,  et  dont  les  beaut^s,  meme  les  moins  fines, 
dependent,  la  plupart,  des  circonstances  oubliees,  ou  qui  ne 
touchent  plus."  ^  This  Culturgeschichte  element  he  again  allows, 
when  he  likes  to  read  the  ancients  "pour  voir  d'autres  pr6jug6s."^ 

Comparison  ^  may  not  be  circumstantial,  but  in  the  large  it  is 
inevitable.  As  a  criterion,  it  results  naturally  from  the  process 
of  imitation,^^  which  seemed  to  Montesquieu,  for  the  forming  of 
taste  at  least,  equally  as  necessary.  The  French  had  only  "  mis6ra- 
bles  ouvrages  "  until  the  Renaissance  period — 

"  Mais,  d^s  que  I'on  commenpa  k  lire  les  Anciens,  que  I'on  etit  perdu  un  siecle 
a  les  commenter  et  h  les  traduire,  on  vit  paraitre  des  auteurs,  et  (ce  qui  me  semble 
faire  la  gloire  des  Anciens)  on  pent  leur  comparer  les  Modernes."  " 

He  has  manifested  his  astonishment  that  the  English  can  admire 
the  ancients  so  much  without  imitating  them.^^ 

'P.  &  R,  II,  39.  ^P.  &  F.,  II,  64. 

3P.  &  F.,i,  310-12.     For  the  "simplicity"  cf.  sup.,  p.  43. 

^P.  &F.,i,  309.  5  Cf.  sup.,  p.  91.  «P.  &F.,i,  227-8. 

''P.  &  F,  1,  227.  8  VII,  160.  ^Cf.  sup.  p.  32. 

10 Cf.  mp.,  p.  50.  "P.  <&F,i,  227. 

12  VII,  169;  P.  <&F.yUySO. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  127 

The  Quarrel  is,  of  course,  another  point  of  contact.  The 
Lutrin,  wherein  the  ancients  were  not  taken  as  models,  is  the  best 
argument  that  Perrault's  cause  could  have.  Against  its  own 
author's  opinion,  it  is  a  fine  plea  for  the  moderns.^  It  is  chiefly, 
however,  a  later  phase  of  the  Quarrel,  the  dispute  on  Homer, 
that  excites  comment  from  Montesquieu.  He  has  ridiculed  in 
the  Lettres  persanes  the  whole  puerile  discussion,  as  begotten  by 
beaux  esprits — 

''Par  exemple,  lorsque  j' arrivals  a  Paris,  je  les  trouvai  ^chauff^s  sur  une 
dispute  la  plus  mince  qu'il  se  puisse  imaginer  :  il  s'agissait  de  la  reputation  d'un 
vieux  poete  grec.  .  .  Les  deux  partis  avouaient  que  c'  etait  un  poete  excellent :  il 
n'^tait  question  que  du  plus  ou  du  moins  de  merite  qu'il  fallait  lui  attribuer."  ^ 

Everyone  wished  to  assign  the  per  cent ;  and  among  so  many 
distributors  of  reputation,  "les  uns  faisaient  meilleur  poids  que 
les  autres.'^  This  was  the  trouble.  It  gave  rise  to  coarse  insults 
and  bitter  pleasantries,  and  Usbek  fears  greatly  the  implacable 
hate  of  these  people,  whose  enmity  could  be  stirred  by  such 
a  trifle. 

More  seriously,  he  considers  that  Pope  has  come  off  best  in 
the  Quarrel,  since  he  alone  realized  the  greatness  of  Homer, 
which  was  the  essential  point.^  Madame  Dacier  showed  zeal 
without  knowledge,  and  dragged  LaMotte  into  details.  The 
latter,  with  this  esprit  retreci^  lacked  sentiment  and  an  acquaint- 
ance with  Antiquity — a  deficiency,  which,  from  the  President\s 
standpoint,  was  largely  shared  by  the  other  disputants. 

There  are  some  things  that  may  be  said  for  modern  writers, 
and  more  things  against  them.  It  may  be  that  if  the  old  world 
had  better  esprits,  the  new  has  at  times  better  works."*  It  is 
difficult  to  write  ill,  now  that  we  are  experts  on  taste.^  Yet  there 
is  far  more  to  mar  the  modern  literatures  than  to  make  them. 
This  exclamation  gives  one  cause  for  decadence : 

"Quel  siecle  que  le  notre,  oil  il  y  a  tant  de  critiques  et  de  juges,  et  si  peu  de 
lecteurs."  ® 


ip.  <J^  F.,  II,  53.  'I,  141-2.  ^F.  &  F„  ii,  29-30. 

*P.  cfe  F.,  I,  228.  5P.  &  P.,  II,  51  ;  of.  mp.,  p.  46.  «vii,  162. 


128  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

Amusements  are  too  numerous  for  reading.^  Among  other  and 
graver  causes,  there  is  the  taste  for  badinage  and  paradox,  the 
dominance  of  women  and  conversation.^  There  is  the  penchant 
for  ridicule,  the  spirit  of  the  nil  admirari — "  On  ne  saurait  croire 
jusques  oii  a  6t6,  dans  ce  dernier  si^cle,  la  decadence  de  Padmira- 
tion."  ^  He  would  explain  the  general  lack  of  taste  for  Corneille 
or  Racine,  as  due  to  the  ridicule  which  is  poured  upon  all  things 
for  which  a  great  intelligence  is  needed.  Then,  anything  which 
has  a  determined  object,  anything  which  smacks  of  specialism  will 
not  be  tolerated. 

*'0n  ne  connait  que  les  objets  g^neraux,  et,  dans  la  pratique,  cela  ce  r^duit  3, 
rien.  C'est  le  commerce  des  femmes  qui  nous  a  menes  la  :  car  c'est  leur  caract^re 
de  n'^tre  attach^es  a  rien  de  fixe.  II  n'y  a  plus  qu'un  sexe,  et  nous  sommes  tous 
femmes  par  1' esprit.  .  ."  * 

Sentiment  also  seems  ridiculous,  and  natural  family  affection, 
and  the  strong  emotions  of  tragedy.'  All  these  were  sources  of 
appreciation  for  his  ancestors,  as  they  would  be  for  any  people 
"  dont  les  moeurs  seraicnt  moins  corrompues  que  les  notres. 
Nous  sommes  parvenus  k  une  trop  malheureuse  d^licatesse." 

It  was  thought  until  lately  that  a  devotion  to  letters  was 
inappropriate  in  a  grand  seigneur^ — a  sentiment  which  has  been 
ascribed  to  Montesquieu  himself.^  This  would  be  the  pride  of 
birth.     More  explicitly  harmful  is  the  philosophe  spirit — 

''Un  certain  esprit  de  gloire  et  de  valeur  se  perd  peu  a  peu  parmi  nous.  La 
philosophic  a  gagn^  du  terrain,^  les  id^es  anciennes  d'h^roisme  et  de  bravoure,  et 
les  nouvelles  de  che valeric  se  sont  perdues."  ^ 

With  this  is  connected  the  yielding  to  method  and  the  supremacy 
of  commercialism  and  calculation. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  34.  ^i,  149 ;  i,  216  ;  vii,  178. 

^P.  <fe  F.,  II,  33,  cf.  Ibid.y  p.  51 — "  Nous  jugeons  des  ouvrages  d' esprit  avec  le 
dugout  des  Sultans." 

^Ibid. ,  p.  33.     Cf.  sup.  under  Women  and  Esprit. 

^P.  &  F,  II,  56-7.     Quoted  mp.,  p.  82. 

•'vii,  85.— Relative  to  the  Marshal  of  Berwick.  ''  Cf.  inf.,  p.  189. 

^And  he  adds  in  another  reading  (P.  &  F.,  ii,  141) — '^j'ose  m^rae  dire  un 
certain  bon  sens." 

*vir,  175.  Though  he  thinks  too  that  the  philosophe  spirit  has  left  alone  the 
character  and  manners,  while  gaining  the  mind. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  129 

This  surely  seems  'modern'  enough,  too  modern  for  the  eigh- 
teenth century.  It  is,  for  a  moment,  the  theme  of  Burke's 
threnody  on  the  age  of  chivalry. 

He  returns  to  literature  and  to  the  Quarrel,  again  belittling 
the  latter  and  again  asserting  that  even  its  conceded  and  boasted 
bon  sens  is  not  enough  for  the  former  in  this  age  : 

"  Un  si^cle  od  le  souverain  m^rite  est  de  penser  juste,  et  qui,  dans  le  temps 
qu'il  admire  une  belle  traduction  de  Vlliade,  n'est  pas  moins  frapp^  d'un  mauvais 
raisonnement  sur  Vlliade.^ ^  ^ 


Individual  Authors. 

Before  entering  on  the  large  field  of  the  different  literatures 
with  which  Montesquieu  was  more  or  less  acquainted,  it  may  be 
well  to  take  some  account  of  his  views  on  the  various  languages, 
as  well  as  to  show  to  what  degree  he  was  versed  in  foreign 
tongues. 

Latin  he  undoubtedly  knew  and  thoroughly.  Greek  he  could 
hardly  have  known  for  reading  purposes.  Such  familiarity  as 
he  had  with  Greek  authors  seems  to  have  come,  in  the  large 
majority  of  cases,  from  secondary  sources  and  translations.^  Of 
the  modern  tongues,  he  knew  something  of  Italian  and  English. 
He  quotes  from  both,  and  drops  into  both  for  phrases  or  descrip- 
tion, in  his  fragmentary  writings.^  But  he  admits,  "je  ne  suis 
pas  assez  fort  dans  la  langue  italienne  pour  juger  de  la  diction."  * 
As  to  English  : 

' '  It  does  not  appear  that  he  had  prepared  himself  for  his  visit  to  England  by 
acquiring  the  language."  ^ 


ip.  <fei?'.,  I,  224. 

'Ste-Beuve  (C  de  L.,  xii,  81)  is  convinced  that  none  of  the  great  four  read 
Homer  directly. 

'^Cf.  '*  I  said  to  her,"  &c.,  in  P.  &  F.,  and  the  remarks  on  technique  in  paint- 
ing, Voy.  I,  passim. 

*vii,  440.  ^Collins,  Mont,  in  England,  p.  339. 


130  Tke  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

The  same  writer  accounts  for  the  fact  that  the  Presidents  rela- 
tions in  England  were  rather  with  the  social  than  the  literary  set/ 
by  assuming  that  "  though  he  could  read  English  and  follow  it, 
when  spoken,  with  perfect  facility,  he  could  not  speak  it  intelligi- 
bly." ^  And  anecdotes  are  cited  which  seem  to  support  these 
statements,  save  as  to  the  point  of  "  perfect  facility." 

We  may  then  suppose  a  reading  knowledge  of  Italian  and 
English,  sufficient  for  a  respectable  amateur  acquaintance  with 
the  masterpieces  in  these  tongues ;  but  the  knowledge  which 
makes  for  an  adequate  literary  appreciation  can  be  predicated 
only  of  French  and  Latin. 

His  remarks  on  language  and  the  languages  are  certainly 
piquant  and  perhaps  illuminative.  From  an  academician's  stand- 
point, as  he  pleasantly  states,  French  should  gain  ground  abroad 
every  day  and  ultimately  become  the  common  language  for  the 
communication  of  the  peoples.^  It  shines,  in  contrast  to  the  Latin, 
by  its  definiteness  and,  in  a  way,  by  its  lack  of  charm  : 

''C'est  que  le  franpais  repr^sente  au  Franfais  les  choses  comme  elles  sont :  il 
lui  donne  une  id6e  juste,  qui  est  si  claire  qu'il  n'en  peut  pas  ajouter  d'accessoires. 
Dans  le  latin,  que  nous  n'entendons  pas  parfaitement,  1' imagination  ajoute  a  la 
veritable  id^  une  id^e  accessoire,  qui  est  toujours  plus  agrdable."  * 

French  pronunciation  may  seem  like  song  to  a  foreigner,  because 
"  tout  ce  qui  s'^loigne  de  la  prononciation  ordinaire  parait  chant."  ^ 
French  versification,  it  has  been  seen,^  is  composed  of  iambics,  as 
contrasted  with  the  Italian  trochee  and  the  dactyl  of  the  English 
and  the  German.  This  works  against  exact  correspondence  in 
translation,  as  does  also  the  fact  that  "  la  langue  franyaise  est  plus 
pure  et  plus  simple,  et  Fitalienne  est  plus  haute  et  plus  elev^e."  ^ 
The  former,  as  opposed  to  Latin,  cannot  be  so  serre  on  account 
of  its  articles.  "  Ces  articles  sont  des  non-valeurs."  The  fixity 
of  the  Italian  ^  seems  to  him  due  to  the  lack  of  a  common  central 
Court,  whose  changes  would  be  accepted  throughout  the  country.^ 

1  But  cf.  inf.,  p.  152.  Ubid.,  p.  382.  ^  yjj^  221. 

*P.  &  F.,  II,  67.     Cf.  sup.,  p.  42.  ^P.  &  F.,  ii,  4. 

«P.  cfe  F,  II,  4-5,  cf.  sup.,  p.  109.  ^P.  &  F,  ii,  6. 

»That  is,  the  Tuscan,  ^Voy.,  i,  54. 


The  Aesthetic  Docti'ine  of  Montesquieu,  131 

The  English,  strangely  capable  of  some  "jolies  choses  "  is,  on  the 
whole,  frankly  "  barbarous.^'  ^  What  indicates,  more  than  these 
sporadic  and  unsafe  judgments,  that  he  had  something  of  the 
philological  instinct  is  his  preoccupation,  in  translation  and  in 
original  expression,  with  semasiological  niceties.^ 

Proceeding  to  the  literatures,  two  cautions  must  first  be  taken. 
The  President  cannot  always  be  credited  with  impartial  views. 
Towards  his  friends  and  well-wishers,  his  criticisms  are  lenient 
and  complimentary.^  Towards  his  detractors  and  opponents,  he 
does  not  always  manifest  a  pure  liberality.^  Again,  there  is  a 
tendency  towards  a  superficial,  hasty  or  raffing  sort  of  criticism, 
well  illustrated  in  his  comparison,  already  mentioned,^  between 
certain  painters  and  authors.  This  comparison,  as  a  curious 
sample  of  singular  insufficiency,  may  well  be  given  :  ^ 

**S'il  faut  donner  le  caractere  de  nos  poetes,  je  compare  Corneille  a  Michel- 
Ange,  Kacine  a  Kaphael,  Marot  (La  Fontaine)  au  Correge,  La  Fontaine  (Marot) 
au  Titien,  Despreaux  au  Dominiquin  (aux  Carraches),  Crebillon  au  Guerchin, 
Voltaire  au  Guide,  Fontenelle  au  Bernin,  Chapelle,  La  Fare  et  Chaulieu  au 
Parmesan,  le  pere  Lemoine  a  Joseph  Pin,  Regnier  au  Giorgione,  La  Motte  au 
Rembrand,  Chapelain  est  au-dessous  d' Albert  Dxirer.'^  Si  nous  avions  un  Milton, 
je  le  comparerais  a  Jules  Romain.  Si  nous  avions  le  Tasse,  nous  le  coraparerions 
aux  Carraches.  Si  nous  avions  I'Arioste,  nous  ne  le  comparerions  a  personne, 
parce  que  personne  ne  lui  peut  etre  compare. ' ' 

It  is  true  that  something,  though  not  very  much,  may  be  derived 
from  the  first  part  of  this  catalogue ;  but  in  the  main  it  is  at 
once  categorical  and  indefinite.  The  uncertainty  shown  in  his 
substitutions  is  significant. 

Montesquieu  was  always  a  great  reader  and  had  supremely  the 
faculty  of  turning  grass  to  wool.    Both  Bernadau  ^  and  Walckenaer  ^ 

ip.  &  F.,  II,  81.  2p  ^  p^  ij^  8  and  passim. 

3  VII,  381,  388.     Especially  is  he  kind  to  Hume,    (vii,  320-1),  cf.  inf.,  p.  152. 

^E.  g.,  his  attitude  towards  Voltaire,  Boulainvilliers  and  Dubos.  Cf.  inf.,  pp. 
144,  147. 

5  a.  mp.,  p.  33. 

«vii,  163.  Also  (fuller)  P.  &  F.,  ii,  49  and  Notes,  p.  539.  The  variants  are 
found  in  the  last  reference. 

■^In  place  of  this  the  Notes  give — "  Rotrou  est  mieux  qu' Albert  Diirer  ;  le 
Pinturicchio  est  notre  Chapelain." 

8  Tableaux,  p.  194. 

'•Who  had  access  to  M's  notes  on  his  reading — ih^  Spicilegnim  which  is  stil} 
unpublished.     (Montesquieu  in  Biog.  Univ.,  p.  89.) 


132  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  MoiUesquieu, 

express,  in  identical  words,  their  astonishment  at  the  prodigious 
quantity  of  books  he  had  read,  and  at  the  fact  that  "  les  pens^es 
les  plus  remarquables  et  les  plus  profondes  lui  6taient  presque 
toujours  sugg6r6es  par  des  ouvrages  frivoles ;  et  il  en  lisait  beau- 
coup  de  ce  genre." 

We  are  fortunate  in   having  a  number  of  details  as  to  his 
private  reading  and  the  composition  of  his  library.^ 

*  It  seems  worth  while  to  give  a  summary  of  this  information.  First,  as  to  his 
youthful  reading,  there  is  an  anonymous  MS.  note  to  the  Bibliotheque  Nationale 
copy  of  Solignac's  Eloge.  Among  '* des  Merits  que  son  Pere  lui  mit  en  main" 
were,  according  to  this  annotator,  "Cic^ron,  Horace,  Plutarque,  Lucien,  Rabelais, 
Montaigne,  Bayle,  Locke,  Lafontaine,  Moliere,  Pascal,  Bodin,  Pufendorf, 
Desbans,  Grotius,  Descartes,  Neuton  {sic),  Gassendi,  Lamotte,  Le  Vayer,  Platon, 
Lucr^ce,  I'Aloisia  (?),  Th^ophile,  Verville,  Sextus  Empiricus,  Lacru,  les  trans- 
actions philosophiques,  les  M6m.  de  1' Acaddmie des  sciences." — {Eloge,  pp.  250-1). 
And  Labat  (La  BrMe,  p.  183)  found  in  the  note-books  of  Montesquieu's  youth  a 
list  of  authors  "qui  semble  indiquer  dans  leur  ordre  ceux  qui  ^taient  alors  de  sa 
predilection.  C'^tait  Moliere,  Corneille,  Racine,  Boileau,  Pascal,  Rabelais, 
Montaigne,  Labruyere,  Cervantes."  These  last,  he  considers,  may  have  given  the 
germ  of  inspiration  for  the  L.  P. 

As  to  the  President' s  library,  it  results  from  inventories  and  examinations  made 
by  Brunet  (Migne,  xliii,  col.  344-6,  and  Bulletin,  pp.  33-6)  and  Labat  (op.  ciY., 
pp.  181-2)  that,  although  there  is  some  account  of  a  collection  of  4,000  volumes, 
the  working  library  of  Montesquieu  liimself  at  the  time  of  his  death  consisted  of 
just  1556  works.     This  is  still,  with  some  exceptions,  at  La  Brede.     It  included  : 

Theology,  291  works— 9  Bibles,  11  Testaments,  many  Fathers  and  commentaries. 
'     Jurisprvdence,  324  works. 

Sciences  et  arts,  318.  Numerous  works  on  medicine  and  exact  sciences,  some  on 
occult  sciences.     Plato,  Aristotle,  Montaigne,  Charron,  Bacon,  Hobbes,  6  Euclids, 

2  Plinies. 

Belles- Lettres,  267.     Accounted  in  this  class  are,  curiously  enough,  Du  Cange, 

3  Greek  dictionaries,  2  Ciceros,  Demosthenes,  Homer,  Lycophron,  4  Virgils, 

4  Horaces,  4  Juvenals.  Some  few  Elzevirs  and  Aldines,  but  editions  usually 
small  and  worthless  16th  century,  from  the  presses  of  Bale  or  Lyons. 

French  Literature — not  rich.    Marot,  Rabelais,  Ronsard  and  17th  century  classics. 

Italian  Literature — feeble.     Petrarch,  Ariosto,  Tasso. 

History,  306.  Many  travels.  Marco  Polo,  Pinto,  Chardin,  etc.  Ancient 
historians  in  great  number.  French — Gregory  of  Tours,  Villehardouin,  Monstre- 
let,  de  Thou,  Commines,  etc.  Also  several  collections  for  archaeology.  Literary 
history  poor  (3  Bibliotheques,  Photius). 

All  of  the  authorities  mentioned  call  attention  to  the  predominance  and 
importance  of  the  ancients  ;  to  the  number  of  works  on  travels  ;  to  the  fact  that  it 
is  a  library  ad  usum  rather  than  a  collection  de  luxe  or  of  rarities. 

Further,  we  may  remark  that  it  is  a  library  rather  of  the  legist,  historian  and 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  133 

Of  the  various  literatures,  we  may  consider  first  the  Oriental. 
The  Bible,  which  he  quotes  occasionally  in  the  Vulgate,  impresses 
him  peculiarly  for  its  poetic  quality.^  Its  original  character,  the 
character  which  makes  it  respected,  should  be  conserved  in  trans- 
lations— which  recommendation  he  makes  also  for  other  religious 
books,  such  as  the  Koran  and  the  monuments  of  the  Gu^bres. 
He  contrasts  the  Scriptures  with  the  Talmud,  the  former  exempli- 
fying "  Fextraordinaire  dans  le  grand,"  while  the  latter  is  only 
"  Fextraordinaire  dans  le  petit."^  In  the  Koran  also,  spite  of  its 
figured  style  and  its  forceful  expression,  there  are  a  number  of 
puerilities  : 

"  II  semble  d'abord  que  les  livres  inspires  ne  sont  que  les  id^es  divines  rendues 
en  langage  humain  :  au  contraire  dans  notre  alcoran  {sic)  on  trouve  souvent  le 
langage  de  Dieu  et  les  idees  des  hommes."  ^ 

The  religious  is  not  the  only  form  in  which  Orientalism  appealed 
to  our  author.  Sorel  has  called  attention  to  his  taste  for  the 
Arabian  Nights,'^  which,  however,  he  mentions  only  casually.^ 
There  is  something  certainly  of  its  flavor  in  his  shorter  tales,^  as 
Fortage  points  out,^  though  hardly  in  the  Lettres  persanes. 

The  Greeks,  whose  supremacy  in  all  arts  has  been  heretofore 
posited,^  receive  as  writers  from  the  President  an  admiration 
generally  enthusiastic,  though  somewhat  vague,  unreasoned  and 
traditional.  He  thinks  that  they  showed  less  of  esprit,  less  of  the 
epigrammatic  touch  than  the  Latins.^  And  there  is  the  remarkable 
statement  that  "  les  Grecs  ^taient  hardis  pour  le  style  et  timides 
pour  la  pens^e.'^  He  discusses  only  the  half-dozen  leading  lights, 
with  special  fondness  for  Homer. 

scholar  than  of  the  man  of  letters.  Pure  literature  occupies  a  subordinate  place — 
if  we  except  Du  Cange  and  his  consorts.  The  classics,  Latin,  French,  and  Italian 
are  respectably  present,  but  not  as  the  back -bone  of  the  collection. 

'  VII,  347-8,  cf.  sup.,  p.  95.  ^Mel  in.,  137. 

=*i,  312.  *Mont.,  p.  27.  ^P.  &  F.,  ii,  108. 

^A.  &  I.     One  might  add  the  episodic  and  salacious  tales  of  the  L.  P. 

'  Ed.  Hist,  verit.,  p.  xii.  According  to  this  editor,  he  read  Galland's  adaptation 
of  the  Nights  (1703-1711). 

^  Cf .  sup. ,  pp.  49,  58.  Also  Greece  showed  the  Universe  '  *  le  gotlt  et  les  arts 
portes  a  un  point  que  de  croire  les  surpasser  sera  toujours  ne  les  pas  connaitre 
(IV,  414). 


134  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

For  the  blind  bard,  indeed,  the  force  of  praising  can  no  farther 
go.  The  Odyssey  is  emphatically  the  most  beautiful  poem  in  the 
world,  after  the  Iliadj  which  is  the  first. ^  In  an  opinion  which  he 
at  least  encourages,  there  are  only  two  epic  poems,  the  Iliad  and 
perhaps  the  Aeneid.'^  Homer  surpasses  Virgil  for  grandeur  and 
variety  of  characters.^  The  first  poet  made  possible  the  second, 
who,  however,  "  manquait  du  beau  feu  d'Hom^re."  *  Variety  of 
episodes,  of  movement,  of  redts,  of  combats,  is  the  quality  of 
Homer  which  is  dwelt  upon.^  His  descriptions  and  comparisons 
are  found  riantes  and  admirable.^  The  rapidity  of  his  action,  his 
warmth,  the  natural  development  of  his  subject,  his  tempered  and 
enveloping  use  of  the  marvellous,  the  simplicity  with  which  he 
depicts  customs,  finally  his  patriotism — all  are  commended.^  It 
is  quite  possible  that  he  imitated  some  one,  and  the  cantilenae 
theory  of  his  epics  is  considered  likely. 

Homer  "  n'a  6te  th^ologien  que  pour  ^tre  po^te,"  nor  is  he  to 
be  regarded  as  the  father  and  master  of  all  the  sciences,  a  ridicu- 
lous claim  for  any  author.^  His  continual  greatness  is  shown 
indirectly  by  the  excellence  of  the  Telemaque^^  and  is  also  the 
principal  point  that  evolves  from  the  Quarrel.^® 

The  error  which  Montesquieu  attributes  to  the  Greeks,  of  taking 
relative  qualities  as  absolute,  is  held  to  have  "  inundated  all  their 
philosophy,"  to  have  been  the  Jleau  and  deception  of  Socrates, 
Plato  and  Aristotle.'^  This  Greek  philosophy  was  "  tr^s  peu  de 
chose"  and  has  "gat^  tout  FUnivers."  ^^  Aristotle's  thought  is 
qualified  as  a  profitless  jargon, ^^  his  obscurity  is  reprimanded,^*  he  is 
unjustly  accused  of  personal  prejudice  and  jealousy  in  his  Politics?^ 
Plato  is  judged  a  little  more  leniently.  He  is  one  of  the  four 
great  poets,^^  his  system  is  beautiful  enough  to  be  of  our  own  day,^^ 

» IV,  405. 

^  I,  425.     So  thinks  his  editor,  though  both  may  be  of  Homer. 
3  VII,  159.  ^P.&F.,u,S6. 

^F.  &  F. ,  II,  35-6.     Granted,  however,  that  the  Homeric  epithets  grow  weari- 
some (Ibid.,  55). 
6  VII,  423  ;  P.  &F.,  ii,  35.  "^P.  &  F,  ii,  35-7.  sp.  &  F,  i,  223.  , 

9  VII,  158.  i«i,  141-2  ;  P.  &F,  ii,  29-30.  "  vii,  159-60. 

i2p.  <fe  F,  II,  489.  '^P.  &  P.,  II,  492.  i*P.  &  P.,  ii,  202. 

^5  V,  414.  "  VII,  171.  "P.  &  P.,  II,  489. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  135 

some  of  his  opinions  are  quoted  with  approval/  But  he  says_ 
"  presque  rien  que  des  paroles  "  ^  and  he  too  is  accused  of  partial- 
ity.^ Nor  is  his  Republic  more  ideal  than  that  of  Sparta.*  Both 
authors  must  be  read,  however,  for  a  just  idea  of  the  laws  and 
manners  of  ancient  Greece.^ 

The  dramatists,  he  has  remarked,  are  supreme  in  invention  and 
passion.^  Demosthenes  impresses  him  as  opposed  to  declama- 
tion ^  and  is  the  provoking  cause  of  a  heau  mot — "  d^s  qu^il  ne 
foudroie  pas,  il  est  simple ;  tel  que  le  ciel,  il  est  presque  toujours 
serein,  et  il  ne  tonne  que  par  intervalles."  ^  Plutarch  is  about 
the  only  spirituel  Greek. ^  "  Plutarque  me  charme  toujours  :  il  a 
des  circonstances  attach^es  aux  personnes  qui  font  toujours  plaisir."  ^^ 
That  is  to  say,  he  has  the  art  of  arousing  sympathy  for  his  person- 
ages, seen  particularly  in  the  Death  of  Caesar. 

Montesquieu  pleads  the  Latins  as  his  special  admiration."  It 
may  accordingly  be  expected  that  he  will  have  more  to  say,  and 
more  of  value  to  say,  regarding  his  favorite  authors.  But  the  net 
result  is  not  so  very  large. 

Yirgil,  it  has  just  been  seen,  is  inferior  to  Homer  in  character- 
drawing  and  invention — but  is  his  equal  for  pure  poetic  beauty.^^ 
He  lacks  the  Homeric  fire,  and  is  finer  in  his  first  books,  where  he 
imitates  the  Odyssey^  than  in  his  last  where  he  follows  the  Iliad}^ 
So  the  last  books  give  our  author  less  pleasure,  as  being  too  long 
drawn  out  and  comparatively  uninteresting.^*  Yet,  as  compared 
with  such  a  one  as  Lucan,  he  stands  forth  as  Raphael  toward  the 
Venetian  School — more  natural,  if  less  frappant}^ 

Horace  is  barely  mentioned  as  capable  of  awkwardness  in 
dialogue,^^  and  great  in  satire. ^^  Juvenal  is  there  his  inferior.  His 
satire  on  women  is  the  work  of  a  pedant. 

Ovid  came  nearer  appealing  to  the  President.     There  is  the 

Ubid.,  489-91.  2p_  ^  ^^^  ji^  202.  3  V,  414. 

* VII,  161.  5 VII,  160.  sQuotedsMp.,  p.  107. 

'Cf.  inf.,  p.  156.  ^P.  &F.,i,  216.  »P.  <&  F.,  ii,  30. 

i»P.  &  F.,  II,  38.  »  VII,  158-9,  cf,  mp.,  pp.  125,  130. 

12  vn,  159.  '^P.  &  F.,  II,  36.  '*P.  &  F,  ii,  39-40. 

's  VII,  136.  i8P.  &  F,  II,  40.  "P.  &  P.,  II,  52. 


136  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

story  of  Charlemont  ^  that  the  book  Montesquieu  was  reading  at 
the  time  of  his  visit  turned  out  to  be  the  most  gallant  of  that 
poet's  elegies.  At  Paphos,  Ovid  and  Tibullus  are  ranked  by  the 
Graces  with  Anacreon  and  Sappho.^  The  Ars  Amoris  surely 
"  knows  how  to  please."  ^  Ovid  and  Bussy  are  "  deux  exiles  qui 
n'ont  su  soutenir  leur  mauvaise  fortune.''  *  The  former  is  admir- 
able in  painting  passions,  too  swift  to  be  diffuse  and  hardly  so 
much  addicted  to  esprit  as  has  been  claimed.*  On  one  verse  of 
the  poet's — 

Et  matroncUes  erubitere  genae. 

our  author  spends  pages  of  disquisition.  ^ 

Cicero  is  "  un  des  plus  grands  esprits  qui  aient  jamais  6t6 : 
I'^me  toujours  belle  lorsqu'elle  n'6tait  pas  faible."  ^  According  to 
Vian  ^  and  Labat,  the  orator  is  for  the  President  "  celui  de  tons 
les  anciens  auquel  il  aurait  aim6  le  mieux  h  ressembler."  The 
Discours  sur  Ciceron^^  a  product  of  Montes(juieu's  youth,  declares 
the  elevating  effect  of  reading  the  Roman,  accords  fervid  praise  to 
his  personal  merit,  his  eloquence,  "  toute  grande,  toute  majestueuse, 
toute  h^roique,"  the  hardiesse  of  his  expressions  and  the  vivacity 
of  his  sentiments,  his  transports,  his  portraits,  the  profundity  of 
his  philosophy,  etc. 

For  the  historians,  there  is  none  like  the  ornate,  epigrammati- 
cal,  antithetical  Florus,  an  admiration  which  on  Montesquieu's 
part  is  most  significant.  This  writer  is  quoted  approvingly  for 
his  striking  concision,  his  power  of  giving  a  whole  thought  by 
suggestion  in  the  fewest  possible  words ;  ^°  as  also  for  his  use  of 
antithesis  in  its  larger  sense,  as  a  true  contrast  of  ideas."  His 
habit  is  to  astonish  and  impress  the  imagination. 

Livy  is  "  un  pen  d^clamateur,  et  ce  qu'il  y  a  d'admirable,  il  ne 
Vest  pas  dans  ses  belles  harangues."  ^^     It  is  a  pity  to  see  him 

^  Hardy,  Mem.  of  Charlemont,  i,  62. 

2  VII,  467.  3  VII,  478.  *P.  &  F.,  n,  41. 

^Ibid.,  44-6.  For,  if  so,  esprit  would  reign  in  his  works  as  in  those  of  Marini. 
But  Ovid  "  prenait  le  caractere  qui  ^tait  propre  a  chaque  sujet." 

^Ibid.,  41-4.  ^vii,  159.  ^MeL  in.,  pp.  3ff. 

^Hist.,p.U5.  ^0  VII,  121-2. 

^^  VII,  138-9.  For  Montesquieu's  endorsement  of  such  doctrine,  see  inf.,  under 
Style,  p.  159  and  under  Application,  p.  192. 

^^P.  <&  F.f  n,  47.     Cf.  on  Demosthenes,  just  above. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  137 

"Jeter  ses  fleurs  sur  ces  ^normes  colosses  de  Pantiquit^."  ^  The 
subtle  reflections  of  Tacitus  are  useless  for  politicians — ^because 
the  facts  which  inspired  them  would  take  all  eternity  to  come 
again. ^  But  he  too  is  praised  for  concision,  as  a  writer  "  qui 
abregeait  tout,  parce  qu'il  voyait  tout."  ^  And  d'Alembert  would 
have  it  that  Tacitus  has  helped  Montesquieu  much.^ 

An  unorthodox  taste,  thereby  the  rnore  suggestive,  is  that  for 
the  Periple  of  Hannon,  whose  authenticity  is  more  than  doubtful. 
Our  writer  purposely  repeats  his  praise  —  ^ 

"C'est  un  beau  morceau  de  1' antiquity  que  la  relation  d' Hannon  :  le  m^me 
homme  qui  a  execute  a  ^crit ;  il  ne  met  aucune  ostentation  dans  ses  r^cits.  .  .  Les 
choses  sont  comme  le  style.     II  ne  donne  point  dans  le  merveilleux." 

A  stricter  standard  is  shown  in  the  condemnation  of  Quintus 
Curtius,  by  the  side  of  whom  even  Arrian  shines  forth — 

"On  ne  salt  guere  quel  est  le  rh^teur  qui,  sans  savoir  et  sans  Jugement,  promene 
Alexandre  sur  une  terre  qu'il  ne  connait  pas,  et  qui  le  couvre  de  petites  fleurs,  et 
qui  a  ^crit  sans  connaitre  une  seule  des  sources  o^  il  devait  puiser."  * 

The  ancients  have  not  cited  him  at  all,  and  although  the  purity 
of  his  style  (?)  shows  his  antiquity,  only  an  age  of  barbarism 
could  bring  him  from  oblivion  to  the  schools. 

Seneca  is  mentioned  humorously  as  a  philosophic  consolation,^ 
his  Thyestes  is  ridiculed  for  its  lack  of  historical  perspective.^ 
Lucretius  is  lengthily  quoted,  but  his  arguments  and  some  of  his 
philosophy  are  deemed  of  little  value.^  Marcus  Aurelius  is 
warmly  lauded : 

"  Jamais  philosophe  n'a  mieux  fait  sentir  aux  hommes,  les  douceurs  de  la  vertu 
et  la  dignity  de  leur  etre  que  Marc  Antonin  :  le  coeur  est  touchy,  I'^me  agrandie, 
resprit^lev^."^o 

Of  the  Fathers,   Montesquieu    mentions  only  St.  Augustine, 

^  II,  150.  2p  ^  p^  jj^  309  3y^  413^ 

*Eloge,  p.  xix.  ^iv,  434;  vii,  110. 

8P.  &  R,  II,  46.  ^i,  134.  ^YU,  144. 

»At  beginning  of  E.  L.,  Ch.  xxiii  (v,  57).     Also  P.  &  F.,  ii,  195  ff.,  where 
his  plea  for  the  destruction  of  the  world  *'  proves  too  much." 
^°  VII,  160. 


138  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

whose  Oivitas  Dei  we  know  that  he  possessed  in  manuscript.^ 
And  this  author  he  mentions  only  to  condemn  his  continual  use 
of  antithesis.^ 

French  literature  naturally  occupies  the  first  place  in  our 
writer's  regard  and  attention.  It  has  been  seen  that  he  considers 
the  course  of  French  letters  as  running  parallel  with  the  growth 
of  the  French  monarchy.^  The  "sombre  lueur"  under  Charle- 
magne did  not  reappear  until  Francis  I.  The  apogee,  he  pretty 
clearly  indicates,  was  the  age  of  Louis  XIV. 

There  is  no  word  upon  the  Old  French  or  the  Middle  French 
writers.  He  begins  with  the  Renaissance  and  with  Ronsard. 
The  latter  author  is  losing  his  reputation,  since  the  influence  of 
savants  has  yielded  to  that  of  women. ^  As  for  Rabelais,  Monte- 
squieu cannot  enjoy  him.  His  gaiety  may  be  admirable,  but  his 
naive  badinage  fatigues  at  length,*  "  Je  ne  Pai  jamais  pu  gotiter." 
Montaigne's  gaiety  is  as  good,^  and  his  excellence  has  a  wider 
range.     These  lines  are  applied  to  him — 

**  His  fancy  and  his  judgment  such  : 
Each  to  the  other  seems  too  much."  ^ 

Again  :  "  Dans  la  plupart  des  auteurs,  je  vois  Fhomme  qui  4crit ; 
dans  Montaigne,  Phomme  qui  pense."  ^  And  Sorel  notes  that  not 
only  does  the  one  Gascon  love  the  other  and  rank  him  among  the 
four  great  poets ;  ^  but  "  il  s'en  d^lecte,  il  s'en  nourrit  et,  par 
moments,  il  le  ressuscite.''  ^^ 

Among  the  romances,  we  have  first  philippics  against  the 
Amadis  and  its  tribe.  As  contrasted  with  Homer,  their  uniformity 
is  wearisome  and  disgusting,  their  combats  long,  their  events  heavy, 
nothing  is  impassioned  and  nothing  is  inevitable."  Scarron,  con- 
cerning whom  he  tells  a  pretty  little  story,^^  has  created  a  truly 


*  Brunet,  he.  eit. 

'P.  «fe  P.,  II,  48. 

2  VII,  127. 

8  VII,  162. 

^Swp.,  p.  84. 

9  VII,  171. 

*P.  &F.,  II,  31. 

Cf.  sup.,  p.  88. 

^^Mmt.,  p.  11. 

sp.  <feP.,ii,  47. 

"P.  cfeP.,  II,  35-6, 

«/6id. 

"P.  <feP.,  II,  263. 

The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  139 

ridiculous  character  in  Ragotin/  and  the  Roman  comique  is  admir- 
able as  Rabelais  for  gaiety.^  The  Princesse  de  Cllves  seems  to 
please  him,  in  that  he  speaks  familiarly  of  the  characters  and  dis- 
cusses their  psychology.^  But  his  only  sure  admiration  along  this 
line  is  for  Manon  Lescaut,  to  whose  protagonists  much  may  be 
forgiven  for  the  motif  of  love.*  His  editor  here  notes  ^  that  this 
lately  published  judgment  confirms  SorePs  *^  ingenious  hypothesis  ^' 
that  Manon  should  have  appealed  to  the  President,  and  Manon 
alone  among  the  fiction  of  his  time.^  Fortage,  in  commending 
Montesquieu^s  opinion  on  the  novel  as  "  ce  jugement  ferme  et  stir 
qu^il  portait  sur  toute  chose/'  lays  emphasis,  one  hardly  sees  from 
what  authority,  on  his  general  taste  for  romances.'^  Sorel  again  ^ 
seems  nearer  the  mark  in  affirming  that  "  les  romans  que  Ton  public 
en  son  temps,  d^lay^s,  sans  observation,  sans  style,  le  d^tournent 
de  la  litt^rature  d'imagination ;  '^  just  as  "  la  versification  terne, 
froide  et  machinale  des  contemporains  le  d^tourne  de  la  po^sie,'' 

Coming  to  the  great  dramatists,  there  is  no  lack  of  respect  for 
Corneille,  he  who  surpassed  the  Cardinal  in  genius,  he  who  forced 
the  Academy  into  fair  criticism  and  acknowledgment  of  what  was 
due  to  him.^  Between  him  and  Racine  a  choice  is  difficult.  There 
are  ten  or  twelve  tragedies  of  these  two  "  qui  ne  permettent  jamais 
de  decider :  celle  que  Ton  voit  repr^senter  est  toujours  la  meil- 
leure."  ^^  Both  are  no  longer  liked,  since  the  exercise  of  a  great 
mind  has  grown  ridiculous."  Both  perhaps,  if  Racine  is  the  other 
author,  inspired  the  SyJla  et  Eucrate — 

"  J'^tais  jeune,  et  il  fallait  etre  bien  jeune  pour  ^tre  excite  k  4cnre  par  la 
lecture  du  grand  Corneille  et  par  la  lecture  de  cet  auteur  qui  est  souvent  aussi 
divin  que  lui."  ^^ 

Yet,  for  distinction,  he  tells  the  Queen  of  England  that  Corneille 
was  regarded  as  the  greater    mind   and  Racine   as   the   greater 

ip.  &  F.,  u,  21,  cf.  mp.,  p.  91.  »P.  &  F.,  n,  47. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  103.  *P.  &  F,  II,  61. 

^P.  <fe  F,  II,  541.  '^Mont,  p.  21. 

'Ed.  Hist.  veriL,  p.  xii.  ^Loc.  cit,  cf.  sup.,  p.  110. 

»P.  &  F,  II,  50  ;  cf.  sup.,  p.  52.  ^Ubid.,  p.  50. 

"P.  &  F,  II,  33.     Cf.  on  Ronsard  and  mp.,  p.  128. 

i2p.  &F,i,  35. 


140  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

author.^  Or  again,  the  lines  of  Corneille  are  pompous  and  those 
of  Racine  are  natural,  though^  the  former  wrote  easily  and  the 
latter  avec  peine.^ 

Racine,  per  se,  has  known  the  restraint  of  modern  manners  and 
"n'a  pas  os6  montrer  Astyanax."  '*  Jansenism,  which  "a  fait  un 
furieux  tort  a  la  Muse  de  M.  Despr^aux,"  has  made  the  glory  of 
Racine  in  Esther  and  in  Athalie ;  for  he  drew  from  the  movement, 
not  tlieological  discussion,  but  a  perception  and  use  of  the  grandeur 
and  poetry  of  religion.^  Ph^dre,  with  its  horror,  crime,  and  filial 
pain,  yet  moves  and  pleases.  "Ce  sont  les  accents  de  la  nature 
qui  causent  ce  plaisir ;  c'est  la  plus  douce  de  toutes  les  voix."  ^ 

Moli^re,  distinguished  both  for  plaisanterie  and  gaiety,^  has  had 
the  advantages  of  the  precursor.  He  ^  has  used  up  all  the  great 
types.^  Hence  it  is  all  the  more  difficult  for  Destouches  and 
Marivaux  to  approach  him. 

The  classical  dictator  is  severely  scored. ^'^  Not  only  has  he 
proved  himself  a  pedant  by  his  worthless  satire  on  women,"  not 
only  has  Jansenism,  turning  into  dogmatism,  spoiled  his  poetry, 
but  his  coarse  pride,  his  "  mauvais  naturel,"  his  frequent  repetition 
of  the  same  satirical  traits  are  "  afflicting.''  He  has  "  un  coeur 
corrompu  et  un  esprit  qui  ne  sert  pas  assez  bien  le  coeur."  ^^  His 
imitations  of  the  ancients  have  caused  it  to  be  believed  that  he  has 
more  e^rit  than  genius,  but  Montesquieu  thinks  from  his  sterility 
that  he  has  more  genius  than  esp7'it  This,  however,  is  a  mere 
paradox  which  the  President  immediately  qualifies  by  allowing 
Boileau's  creative  genius : 


»vii,  184. 

^ In  making  a  contrast  of  the  two  statements  ( "on  ne  divinerait  pas" ),  may  one 
not  see  a  certain  blindness  to  the  deeper  constituent  art  of  poetry — the  ars  celare 
artemf 

3  VII,  140.  5J6id.,  p.  52. 

*P.  &F.,  Ti,  56.  «v,  193-4. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  48. 

^  This  is  not  stated  specifically  of  Moli^re,  but  the  application  is  evident  for  most 
of  the  types. 

8P.  &  P.,  II,  21.     The  list  is  given  mp.  p.  114. 

i«P.  &  P.,  II,  52-3. 

"Cf.  sup.,  p.  118.  "Cf.  sup.,  p.  128. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  141 

"SonLutrin  est  un  po^me  parfait :  il  se  maintient  perpetuellement  centre  la 
bassesse  et  la  sterilite  de  son  sujet  par  la  richesse  de  1' invention.  ^  II  n'y  a  point 
d'ouvrage  qui  ait  ete  plus  difficile  a  faire  que  celui-la,  et  peut-^tre  n'en  avons-nous 
pas  de  plus  parfait.     Nee  erat  quod  toUere  velles.'^ 

The  ancieats  are  not  his  models,  and  he  walks  by  their  side  with 
equal  step.^  Among  his  immortal  works  are  this  Lutrin,  the  Art 
poStique,  "  son  epitre  (sic)  h  M.  de  Yalincour.^' 

Yoiture  has  plaisanterie  and  no  gaiety  ;  ^  he  is  an  "  esprit  fin  ;  ^' 
with  his  finesse  and  affectation,  he  turned  letter- writing  from  its 
pedantic  to  a  worldly  tone/  With  regard  to  La  Rochefoucauld, 
there  is  the  fine  saying  that  his  Maximes  "  sont  les  proverbes  des 
gens  d'esprit,''  ^  La  Bruy^re  is  "  un  honnete  homme  qui  fait  des 
Caractb-es.^^  He  and  the  other  portraitists  should  make  pictures 
and  not  likenesses,  should  paint  men  and  not  one  man,  to  avoid 
the  imputation  of  ill  intention.^  La  Bruyere  knew  his  century, 
being,  however,  less  of  a  philosophe  than  someJ  Balzac  is  the 
chosen  example  of  pedantry  in  the  epistolary  style.^  As  for  Retz, 
there  is  more  life  in  his  Memoirs  than  in  Caesar's  Commentaries.^ 
Bossuet  receives  only  this  doubtful  tribute — 

*'  Dans  les  Maximes  des  Saints,  le  vrai  est  si  pres  du  faux  que  vous  ne  savez  ou 
vous  en  ^tes.  Le  role  de  M.  de  Meaux  etait  ais^  :  il  avait  de  grands  coups  a 
f rapper."  ^° 

The  TeUmaque  of  F^nelon  is  an  "  ouvrage  divin  ,  .  .  dans  lequel 
Homere  semble  respirer.'^  ^^  Saint-Evremond,  like  St.  Augustine, 
combats  with  words  and  has  his  spirit  confined  within  the  limits 
of  an  antithesis.  ^^ 

For  the  philosophers,  Montesquieu  shows  much  admiration  for 
Descartes,  even  to  the  extent  of  borrowing  his  vocabulary. ^^     If 

^  The  reconciliation  will  then  be  in  attributing  the  sterility  to  the  whole  concep- 
tion, the  fecundity  to  its  parts. 

^He  best  disproves  his  own  argument  against  the  moderns,  cf.  sup.,  p.  127. 

3P.  <fei^.,  II,  47.  5yii^  162. 

*P.  &  F.,  II,  49,  cf.  sup.,  p.  87.  6p_  ^  p^  11^  24-5,  cf.  sup.,  p.  87. 

''E.  g.,  than  Duclos  to  whom  Montesquieu  happens  to  be  writing  and  whom  he 
naturally  desires  to  compliment  (vii,  367). 

sp.  &  P.,  II.  49.  "VII,  158  ;  cf.  sup.,  p.  49. 

»P.  &  P.,  II,  51.  "VII,  127  ;  P.  &  P.,  II,  51. 

i°P.  &  P.,  II,  53.  ^^AuUmate,  i,  463. 


142  Tlie  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

Descartes  too  can  be  accused  of  plagiarism,  exclaims  our  author, 
we  must  have  come  to  a  pretty  pass.^  As  early  as  the  Bordeaux 
Academy  Discours,^  respect  is  demanded  at  large  for  those  systems 
in  which  principles  were  developed,  in  which  "on  d^couvrit  ces 
m^thodes  si  ftcondes  et  si  g^n^rales."  People  still  work  only 
after  these  great  philosophers ;  and  present  discoveries  seem  only  a 
homage  to  them.^ 

Specifically,  Descartes'  system  followed  absolutely  is  improba- 
ble.'* Yet  Montesquieu,  in  distinguishing  between  the  cartesiens 
rigides  and  the  cart^ens  mitig^s  who  have  abandoned  their 
master's  rule,  will  himself  cast  his  lot  with  the  former."^  And  he 
thus  rhetorically  renders  his  tribute  : 

'*Ce  grand  system^  de  Descartes,  qu'on  ne  peut  lire  sans  ^tonnement ;  ce 
systSme  qui  vaut  tout  ce  que  les  auteurs  profanes  ont  jamais  dcrit ;  ce  syst^me  qui 
soulage^  si  fort  la  Providence,  qui  la  fait  agir  avec  tant  de  simplicity  et  tant  de 
grandeur ;  ce  systeme  immortel,  qui  sera  admir*^  dans  tons  les  ages  et  toutes  les 
revolutions  de  la  philosophic,  est  un  ouvrage  k  la  perfection  duquel  tons  ceux  qui 
raisonnent  doivent  s'int^resser  avec  une  esp^ce  de  jalousie." 

j  Descartes  is  like  a  runner's  coach,  who  may  not  go  all  the  way 
himself,  but  spurs  on  the  other  to  arrive/  And,  in  the  finest 
phrase  of  all,  a  phrase  which  has  been  applied  to  Bacon  :  "  Des- 
cartes a  enseign^  k  ceux  qui  sont  venus  apr^s  lui,  k  d^couvrir  ses 
erreurs  m^mes." 

Among  his  followers,  much  is  made  of  Malebranche,  who  is 
another  of  the  four  great  poets,®  who  typifies  the  literary  treatment 
of  dry  subjects  :  ® 

'*  Si  le  Pere  Malebranche  avait  ^t^  un  ^crivain  moins  enchanteur,  sa  philosophic 
serait  rest^e  dans  le  fond  d'un  college,  comme  dans  une  espece  de  moude 
souterrain."  ^° 

He  is  often  cited.  His  system  is  finished,  and  though  it  may 
subsist  only  by  its  novelty  where  its  extraordinariness  would  kill 
it,  yet  "jamais  visionnaire  n'a  eu  plus  de  bon  sens  que  le  p6re 
Malebranche."  ^^ 


ip.  &  F.,  II,  11.  nn  1717.  5  VII,  8.  *  vii,  28. 

^  At  least  for  the  Observations  sur  VHistoire  naturelle  (vii,  47-8). 

*  Note  already  his  fine  compression  in  chosing  words. 

T.  &  F.,  II,  493.  syn,  171.  ^Cf.  sup.,  p.  83.  i"  vir,  81. 

»P.  <fei?'.,  n,  493-4. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  143 

There  are  Cartesians  who  have  read  only  the  Mondes  of  Foute- 
nelle.^  "  Get  ouvrage  est  plus  utile  qu'un  ouvrage  plus  fort,  parce 
que  c'est  le  plus  s^rieux  que  la  plupart  des  gens  soient  en  6tat  de 
lire/'  ^  Fontenelle  has  no  gaiety.^  He  carried  on  the  epistolary 
style  of  Voiture/  with  more  of  knowledge,  intelligence,  philoso- 
phy.^ For  this  personal  character  Montesquieu  has  the  warmest 
admiration.  He  is  ^^  autant  au-dessus  des  autres  hommes  par  son 
coeur  qu'il  est  au-dessus  des  hommes  de  lettres  par  son  esprit."  ^ 
Consequently  concerning  the  Lettres  galantes  du  chevalier  d^Her  .  .  ., 
*^je  suis  enrag^  de  voir  un  grand  homme  6crire  comme  cela.'' 
Our  author  writes  him  to  ask  help  for  a  deserving  man  and  assures 
him,  "je  ne  sache  rien  k  vous  dire  de  plus  seduisant  pour  vous." 
His  loftiness  of  aim  silences  envy,  a  passion  from  which  he  himself 
is  remarkably  free.^  In  argument  he  is  ingenious  if  not  always 
solid.^  Montesquieu  and  Mme.  Tencin  strive  to  dissuade  him  from 
publishing  his  comedies,  the  former  with  the  complimentary 
flourish :  "  il  faut  que  votre  reputation  soit  bien  grande,  puisque 
vous  ne  devez  pas  meme  publier  des  ouvrages  admirables.''  ^ 
After  the  publication,  however,  the  President  writes  more  flatly  to 
Guasco  that  he  had  advised  Fontenelle  not  to  vider  le  sac  and 
"  Pimpression  de  ses  comMies  n'a  rien  ajoute  a  sa  r^putation.'^  '^^ 
His  Eloges,  however,  on  the  Czar  and  Newton  are  considered 
worthy  enough  to  be  sent  to  Vienna,  in  order  to  give  to  Prince 
Eugene  and  others  a  "  bonne  opinion  de  notre  France."  ^^ 

Another  Cartesian  who  is  esteemed  is  the  Cardinal  de  Polignac. 
This  person's  Anti-Lucr^ce  is  called  an  "  ouvrage  admirable,''  ^^  an 


1 VII,  82. 

2  Though  he  continues  by  asserting  that  a  work  should  not  be  judged  from  its 
lightness  of  style,  cf.  inf.,  p.  154. 

3P.  <fe  F.,  II,  49.  ^P.  &  R,  II,  49. 

*Cf.  sup.,  p.  141.  ep.  &  F.,  II,  54. 

■^ ''  M.  de  Fontenelle  a  tou jours  eu  cette  quality  bien  excellente  pour  un  homme 
tel  que  lui :  il  loue  les  autres  sans  peine." 

^A  propos  of  a  discussion  which  the  two  had  concerning  th^  impurity  of  bodies, 
P.  <feP.,  II,  507.  11 VII,  221. 

»P.  &F,u,  54.  12 Foy.,  II,  47. 

i°vn,  445. 


144  The  Aesthetic  Doctiine  of  Montesquieu. 

"  ouvrage  immortel  dans  lequel  Descartes  triomphe  une  seconde 
fois  d' Epicure."  ^ 

Bayle  has  gained  glory  by  the  easiest  road — that  of  destructive 
criticism.^  He  is  vigorously  attacked  in  the  Esprit  des  Lois  as  hav- 
ing insulted  all  religions  and  especially  as  having  Jl6tri  the  Christian 
faith.^  "  II  est  ^tonnant  que  Ton  puisse  imputer  h  ce  grand  homme 
d'avoir  m§connu  Pesprit  de  sa  propre  religion."  Which  imputation, 
however,  is  quite  successfully  made.^ 

En  plein  dix-huUihne,  the  first  place  must  be  accorded  to  Vol- 
taire, between  whom  and  Montesquieu  little  love  was  lost.  If  the 
Patriarch  allows  that  our  author  has  restored  its  titles  to  the 
human  race  ^  and  calls  his  work  the  "  Code  de  la  raison  et  de  la 
liberty,"  ®  on  the  other  hand  he  endorses  Mme.  du  Deffand's 
famous  mot  on  the  Esprit  des  Lois — "c'est  de  Pesprit  sur  les 
lois  "  ^ — and  endeavors  in  numerous  instances  to  detract  from  its 
writer's  fame.^ 

The  President  has  given  good  exchange  for  such  compliments. 
"  Voltaire  a  trop  d'esprit  pour  m' entendre."  ^  It  is  of  him  that 
Montesquieu  declares,  "le  bon  esprit  vaut  mieux  que  le  bel 
esprit."  ^^ 

Several  pages,  in  the  PensSes  et  Fragments  are  devoted  to  a 
lively  excoriation  of  the  Patriarch."  The  more  the  Ligue  ^^  seems 
to  be  the  Aeneld,  the  less  it  really  is  the  Aeneid.  Montesquieu 
even  goes  into  a  detailed  criticism  of  a  certain  couplet  in  this  poem 

ip.  &  K,  II,  61. 

2P.  &  F.,  II,  483,  cf.  mp.,  p.  121. 

^  V,  125-6.  This  passage  has  been  used  in  support  of  Montesquieu's  own  faith. 
It  seems  rather  an  atonement,  or  a  sop  to  Cerberus. 

*  There  are  two  readings  here,  of  which  that  given  above  only  seems  the  milder. 

^IHal.  d'A,  B,  C,  VI,  675.  ^Comm.  sur  VE.  L.,  v.  444. 

''Diet.  phiL,  II,  40. 

*'Cf.  Sakmann  passim  and  inf.,  pp.  181-2. 

^vii,  397 — "  Tous  les  livres  qu'il  lit,  il  les  fait;  apr^  quoi  il  approuve  ou 
critique  ce  qu'il  a  fait."  Cf.  M's  denunciation  of  such  manner  of  criticising, 
sup.,  pp.  52-3. 

1°  VII,  419— And  this  esprit  is  a  ''  vice  de  plus  "—P.  &  F.,  ii,  60. 

"P.  &F.,  II,  58-60. 

*^That  is,  the  Henriade.  Cf.  sup.,  p.  107  on  epics,  where  it  is  probably  the 
Henriade  that  is  ruled  out — as  Meyer  thinks,  ed.  L.  P.,  p.  123. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  145 

and  suggests  how  he  would  have  written  it.  The  Charles  XII  ^ 
has  one  fine  passage,  but  "  Pauteur  manque  quelquefois  de  sens." 
Again  : 

"  Voltaire  n'est  pas  beau  ;  il  n'est  que  joli.     II  serait  honteux  pour  1' Academic 
que  Voltaire  en  f(it ;  il  lui  sera  quelque  jour  honteux  qu'il  n'en  ait  pas  ^te." 

But  as  far  as  his  present  vogue  goes,  the  voMromanie  is  "  trop  fort 
pour  faire  son  effet.^^  Voltaire  believes  in  attraction,  as  one 
believes  in  miracles,  because  it  is  an  extraordinary  thing,  and  he 
is  anxious  to  show  his  readers  prodigies,  in  order  to  '^  vendre  son 
orvi^tan."  As  a  whole,  his  works  are  like  those  ill-proportioned 
faces  which  shine  with  youth.  He  will  never  write  a  good  history, 
because  he  writes  for  his  convent.  In  his  tragedies,  he  walks  in 
gardens,  where  Crebillon  marches  on  the  mountains.  It  is  doubt- 
ful which  have  best  done  him  justice,  those  who  have  given  him  a 
hundred  thousand  praises,  or  those  who  have  given  him  a  hundred 
blows  with  a  stick.  As  a  general,  he  takes  goujats  under  his 
protection.  His  imagination  requires  assistance.^  "  Gardez-vous 
de  mourir  le  martyr  de  vos  anecdotes,  ni  le  confesseur  de  vos 
poesies."  Here  is  the  bitterest  word  of  all,  quoted  by  Vian  ^ 
from  the  Bernadau  ms.  and  worthily  suppressed  : 

"  C'est  I'homme  du  monde  qui  dit  le  plus  de  mensonges  dans  le  moins  de  temps 


Finally,  Montglave  *  has  excellently  summarized  the  reciprocal 
attitude  of  these  two  great  luminaries  : 

"lis  s'accusaient  tous  deux  d' avoir  trop  d' esprit  et  d'en  abuser,  et  tons  deux 
avaient  raison." 

From  their  relations,  Montesquieu  would  hardly  be  disposed  to 
feel  very  much  more  kindly  toward  Buffon,  with  whom,  however, 
he  came  more  rarely  aux  prises.  He  speaks  coldly  of  the  Histoire 
naturelle  as  unfavorably  received  by  the  scholars,  whose  prepon- 
derating voice  "  emportera,  a  ce  que  je  crois,  la  balance  pour  bien 
du  temps."  ^     It  is  true  that  the  work  contains  some  beautiful 


*  Which  is  "  toujours  dans  le  prodige,  ^tonne  et  n'est  pas  grand."     vii,  162. 

2 Cited  sup.,  p.  81.  ^HisL,  p.  202. 

^Notice  in  Dauthereau,  ed.  L.  P.,  i,  xxviii,  ^  yii,  329, 


146  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

things  and,  by  common  consent,  makes  very  useful  reading.  In 
an  Academy  eloge,  which  he  thought  to  deliver  on  Buffon,  our 
author  becomes,  as  in  duty  bound,  more  complimentary : 

*'Ces  grandes  conceptions,  dans  cette  mani^re  hardie,  noble  et  fiere,  qui 
ressemble  si  bien  a  celle  de  Michel-Ange."  * 

La  Motte  receives  favorable  comment,  particularly  for  his 
tragedy  of  In^  de  Castro,  which  touched  the  critic  himself,  and  is 
the  example  chosen  to  illustrate  the  power  of  true  feeling  unworth- 
ily ridiculed.^  "  J^ai  bien  vu  qu'elle  n'a  r^ussi  qu'a  force  d'etre 
belle,  et  qu'elle  a  plu  aux  spectateurs  malgr6  eux."  La  Motte 
has  many  critics  but  none  who  could  write  the  least  of  his  works.^ 
It  may  be  that  his  fame  as  a  prosateur  has  harmed  the  reputation 
of  his  verses.  In  the  Quarrel,'*  he  played  rather  an  undignified 
part,  being  dragged  into  details  by  Mme.  Dacier,  evincing  neither 
a  large  grasp,  nor  the  necessary  sentiment,  nor  knowledge  of 
antiquity.^     In  general  he  should  be  considered  : 

* '  un  enchanteur  qui  nous  a  s^uit  par  la  force  des  charmes.  Mais  il  faut  se 
d^fier  de  I'art  qu'il  emploie.  II  a  port^  dans  la  dispute  ce  g^nie  divin,  ces  talents 
heureux,  si  connus  dans  ce  siecle-ci,  mais  que  la  post^rit^  connaltra  mieux  encore."  * 

In  the  drama,  much  admiration  is  displayed  for  Cr^billon,  he  who 
*'  marches  on  the  mountains."  ^ 

"Nous  n'avons  point  d'auteur  tragique  qui  donne  a  I'ame  de  plus  grands 
mouvements  que  Cr^billon  ;  qui  nous  arrache  plus  a  nous-m^mes ;  qui  nous 
remplisse  plus  de  la  vapeur  du  Dieu  qui  I'agite."  * 

He  puts  his  auditors  in  a  transport  as  of  Bacchantes,  and  prevents 
them  from  judging,  because  he  disturbs  the  reflective  soul.  To 
this  tribute  is  added,  in  another  version,^  that  he  is  the  true 
tragedian  of  the  time,  the  only  one  who  can  excite  the  true  passion 
of  tragedy  ;  la  terreur.  Montesquieu  professes  his  sincere  admira- 
tion and  respect  for  Catalina,  the  reading  of  which  delighted  him 

ip.  &F.,i,  267.  ^P.  &  F.,  II,  56,  cf.  sup.,  p.  83. 

3P.  &F.,  n,  57;  cf.  sup.,  p.  121.  *  Cf.  sup.,  p.  127. 

sp.  &  F,  II,  30.  ^P.  &  F,  I,  224. 

^Cf.  sup.,  p,  37,  ^P.  &  F,  II,  57-8. 

''vn,  161, 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  147 

so  much  that  he  found  no  fault  up  to  the  fifth  act.^  He  submits 
his  opinion  with  deference,  as  being  no  connaisseur  on  the  theatre ;  ^ 
but  different  hearts  are  made  for  different  styles  of  drama,  and 
*^  le  mien  en  particulier  est  fait  pour  celui  de  Cr^billon,  et  comme 
dans  ma  jeunesse  je  devins  fol  de  Rhadamiste,  j'irai  aux  petites- 
maisons  pour  CatalinaJ^  The  character  of  this  hero  seems  to  him 
the  finest  on  the  stage — still  on  the  principle  of  de  gustihus} 

Of  other  plays,  the  Esope  d  la  Cour  of  Boursault  inspired  our 
author,  he  says,  to  be  better  * — a  moral  effect  which  he  would  also 
plead  for  La  Motte's  Ines.^  The  Mb^e  confidente  of  Marivaux  is 
likewise  recommendable  for  its  "  admirables  moeurs."  ^ 

Boulainvilliers  ^  and  Dubos,^  in  so  far  as  their  historical  ideas 
conflicted  with  those  of  the  Esprit  des  Lois,  are  brought  to  task  in 
passages  of  some  length.  The  first  has  missed  the  capital  point 
in  his  system,  has  written  without  art  and  with  simplicity.^  He 
had  "plus  d'esprit  que  de  lumieres,  plus  de  lumi^res  que  de 
savoir."  Yet  his  knowledge  is  not  to  be  despised.  The  second  ^^ 
has  written  a  seductive  and  artful  work,  a  colossus  whose  feet  are 
of  clay.  There  is  a  lengthy  attempt  to  bring  his  system  to  the 
ground.  In  that  he  supposes  almost  an  absolute  monarchy  in 
ancient  France,  "  cet  homme  ne  voyait  jamais  dans  cette  histoire 
qu^me  pension.'^  ^^     However  : 

''Le  public  ne  doit  pas  oublier  qu'il  est  redevable  ^  M.  I'abb^  Dubos  de 
plusieurs  compositions  excellentes.  C'est  sur  ces  beaux  ouvrages  qu'il  doit  le 
juger,  et  non  pas  sur  celui-ci."  ^^ 

The  allusion  here  is  probably  to  the  Reflexions  sur  la  poisie  et  la 
peinture,  by  which  Dubos  is  more  generally  known.  But  concern- 
ing this  work,  whose  interest  for  his  aesthetic  theory  would  be 
decidedly  more  prominent,  the  President  has  nothing  specifically 
to  say. 

*  VII,  314.  2 cf.  sup.,  p.  113. 

'Follows  the  passage  on  the  impressionist's  prerogative,  cf.  sup.,  p.  53. 

*P.  &F.,  I,  21.  ^P.  &F.,  II,  56. 

«P.  &  R,  II,  61,  cf.  sup.,  p.  114. 

''Memoires  historiques  sur  Vancien  gouvernement  de  France. 

^Etahlissement  de  la  monarchie  fran^ise. 

»  V,  432.  10  V,  483-498.  "P.  &  P.,  ii,  56,  ^'  v,  498. 


148  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

Of  all  the  coutemporary  versifiers,  Montesquieu  criticises  only 
J.-B.  Rousseau.^  He  has  "  feu  et  fiel."  ^  His  epithets  express 
much  aud  ev^en  too  much. 

"  LMllustre  abb6  de  St.  Pierre/'  who  is  always  proposing 
projects  for  the  good  of  humanity,^  is  yet  reprimanded  for  his 
scheme  to  make  the  nobles  engage  in  commerce.'*  But  he  deserv^es 
to  be  called  "excellent''  and  the  President  would  become  his 
follower.*  This  is  one  proof  of  our  author's  capacity  for  judging 
moral  merit  and  high  service — the  man  as  distinct  from  the 
work.  Another  such  piece  of  evidence  is  found  in  his  estimate 
of  Rollin  : 

"  Un  honn^te  homme  a,  par  ses  ouvrages  d'histoire,  enchant^  le  public.  Cest 
que  le  coeur  y  parle  au  coeur  ;  c'est  I'ami  des  hommes  qui  parle  aux  hommes. 
On  sent  une  secrete  satisfaction  d' entendre  parler  la  Vertu.  ...  C'est  I'abeilie  de 
la  France."* 

This  Ste-Beuve  thinks  a  correct  statement  and  a  "louange 
memorable "  ;  '^  a  "  parole  d'or  et  qui  montre  combien  la  vraie 
superiority  est  indulgente."  ^  Upon  which  it  may  be  remarked 
that  it  is  harder  to  be  indulgent  to  equals,  and  that  test  Montes- 
quieu has  not  always  stood.^ 

There  remains  the  Encyclopedia,  The  promoters  of  this  enter- 
prise made  persistent  efforts,^''  during  his  lifetime  and  after,  to 
include  our  author  among  their  adherents  ;  but  he  could  never  be 
reckoned  as  hand  and  glove  with  their  C^nade,  He  indeed 
contributed  for  them  the  Gout,  He  writes  d'Alembert  that  the 
great  work  is  "  un  beau  palais  o^  je  serais  bien  curieux  de  mettre 
les  pieds,"  respectfully  declining,  at  the  same  time,  to  contribute 
articles  on   Democracy  and  Despotism."     He  compliments  that 

^ Though  he  urged  Piron's  suit  for  a  pension  with  the  Pompadour :  "Madame. 
Piron  est  assez  puni  pour  les  mauvais  vers  qu'on  dit  qu'il  a  faits  ;  d'un  autre  c6t^, 
il  en  a  fait  de  tres  bons.  II  est  aveugle,  infirme,  pauvre,  mari^,  vieux,"  etc. 
(VII,  408). 

2P.  &  F.,  II,  54-5.  sp.  &  R,  II,  55.  *iv,  390. 

^i,  102.  8P.  &  F.,  II,  61.  'a  de  L.,  iv,  467. 

^Ibid.,  VI,  271.  «Cf.  sup.,  p.  124  and  p.  144. 

^'^E.  g.,  d'Alembert,  Eloge,  p.  xxxiii. 

'Wii,  421 — On  the  plea  that  "I'esprit  que  j'ai  est  un  moule,"  etc. — quoted 
sup.,  p.  15. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  149 

writer  on  his  Discours  pr^liminaire :  "  c'est  une  chose  forte,  c'est 
une  chose  charmante,  c'est  une  chose  precise,  plus  de  pensfe  que 
de  mots,  du  sentiment  comme  des  pens^es  et  je  ne  finirais  point." 
Concerning  Diderot  nothing  is  said/ 

Passing  to  Italian  literature,  Montesquieu  modifies  his  former 
statement^  as  to  the  fixity  of  the  language  and  the  standard 
usage  of  good  authors,  by  declaring  that  there  is  no  one  book 
which  can  serve  as  model :  ^ 

"Chacun  ecrit  a  sa  manidre  .  .  .  pourvu  que  I'on  mette  les  paroles  italiennes, 
les  tours  sont  indiff^rents." 

He  hardly  mentions  the  great  trio  of  the  trecento,  merely  allud- 
ing to  proportionate  penalties  which  suggest  the  Inferno^  Ariosto, 
the  incomparable,'^  seems  his  chief  admiration.  This  poet  is  twice 
compared  with  Ovid,  for  rapidity  of  movement,^  and  in  that  he 
collected  and  unified  the  chevalier  tales,  as  Ovid  did  with  fables.'' 
The  remarks  on  Macchiavelli  are  interesting  from  the  fact  that  the 
Italian  publicist  has  been  considered  a  precursor  of  the  French. 
Macchiavelli  was  prejudiced  and  "  full  of  his  idol.''  ^  Montesquieu, 
though  he  has  no  objection  to  adopting  a  maxim  from  this  "  grand 
homme,''  ^  calls  him  severely  to  task  where  he  fails  to  distinguish 
between  the  nature  and  kinds  of  governments  : 

"  C'est  le  d^lire  de  Machiavel  d' avoir  donne  aux  Princes  pour  le  maintien  de 
leur  grandeur  des  principes  qui  ne  sont  n^cessaires  que  dans  le  gouvernement 
despotique,  et  qui  sont  inutiles,  dangereux  et  m6me  impraticables  dans  le 
monarchique.  Cela  vient  de  ce  qu'il  n'en  a  pas  bien  connu  la  nature  et  les 
distinctions  :  ce  qui  n'est  pas  digne  de  son  grand  esprit,"  ^® 

The  Italian  drama  receives  but  slight  regard.  They  do  well  to 
have  only  Polichinelles  and  Arlequins,  since  "ils  ne  peuvent  pas 
avoir  mieux.'' "  < 


^  Maupertuis  is  mentioned  for  his  Essai  de  Philosophie  morale  :  "c'est  I'ouvrage 
d'un  homme  d' esprit,  et  on  y  trouve  du  raisonnement  et  des  graces."     ( vii,  329. ) 

'Cf.  sup.,  p.  130.  Woy.,  I,  94-5.  -^  vii,  171,  479. 

5  VII,  163,  cf.  mp.,  p.  131.  «P.  &  R,  ii,  45.  T.  &  F.,  ii,  47. 

"^Considered  to  be  the  Duke  of  Valentinois — v,  414.  ^ iii,  231. 

i^Barckhausen,  Mont,  V E.  L.,  p.  29.  This  passage,  from  E.  L.,  Bk.,  iii,  9, 
was  suppressed  in  the  current  text. 

"P.    &  F.y    II,    5. 


160  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

Spanish  literature  receives  only  one  reference ;  but  that  is  capital 
and  famous.     He  says  of  Don  Quixote : 

**  Le  seul  de  leurs  livres  qui  soit  bon  est  celui  qui  a  fait  voir  le  ridicule  de  tous 
les  autres."  ^ 

This  is  quite  in  accord  with  the  eighteenth  century  contempt 
for  chivalry  and  medisevalism. 

For  Portuguese,  he  praises  Camoens,  whose  poem  on  the 
discovery  of  India  "  fait  sentir  quelque  chose  des  charmes  de 
FOdyss^e  et  de  la  magnificence  de  PEn^ide."  ^ 

There  is  much  more  concerning  English  authors,  to  whom 
Collins^  holds  that  our  author  owes  a  great  deal,  rather  as 
"indirect  indebtedness."  This  critic's  opinion  as  to  Montesquieu's 
familiarity  with  the  language  and  his  degree  of  acquaintance  with 
English  men  of  letters  ^  is  substantiated  by  Vian,^  who,  however, 
claims  that  he  knew  Pope  and  Swift.  This  last  point  may  prove 
significant.^ 

The  celebrated  discussion  of  the  English  character  in  the 
Esprit  des  Lois"^  is  terminated  by  some  serried  remarks  on  their 
literature  : 

'  Le  caractere  de  la  nation  paraitrait  surtout  dans  leurs  ouvrages  d'esprit,  dans 
quels  on  verrait  des  gens  recueillis,  et  qui  auraient  pens^  tout  seuls."  * 

Their  satires  would  be  sanglants^  more  in  the  style  of  Juvenal 
than  of  Horace.  Their  historians  would  not  be  dominated  by 
fear,  but  would  be  prejudiced  by  faction.  Their  poets  would 
have  rather  "  cette  rudesse  originale  de  Pinvention,  qu'une  certaine 
d^licatesse  que  donne  le  gofit "  ® — rather  the  force  of  Michelangelo 
than  the  grace  of  Raphael. 

Their  originality,  so  strongly  insisted  upon,  approaches,  for  the 
President,  to  singularity,  when  they  will  not  imitate  even  the 
ancients  whom  they  admire,^*^  and  from   whom  they  are  so  far 

ii,  262.  ^YV,  461.  niont  in  England,  p.  363. 

*Cf.  mp.,  p.  130.  ^HisL,  pp.  124-5.  ^Cf.  inf.,  p.  189. 

'iv,  343-56  ;  cf.  also  the  Notes  mr  V Angleterre  {yii,  183-196). 
8 IV,  356. 

'Cf.  sup.,  p.  45 — Indeed,  their  writings  as  a  whole  would  show  "plus  d'esprit, 
que  de  gout"  (iv,  354). 
10  VII,  169;  cf.  mp.,  p.  50. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  151 

removed/  They  are  credited  with  great  imaginative  force.^  It 
is  remarkable  that  their  barbarous  language  can  contain  such 
pretty  things.^ 

There  is  found  the  same  debate  between  the  spirit's  free 
admiration  of  striking  genius  and  the  hesitation  of  the  raffin^^ 
in  the  criticism  of  individuals ;  of  Shakespeare,  for  instance, 
who  receives  what  is  probably  the  fairest  French  classic  eulogium  : 

**Quand  vous  voyez  un  tel  homme  s'dlever  comme  un  aigle;  c'est  lui.  Quand 
vous  le  voyez  ramper  c'est  son  siecle."  * 

The  friend  of  Chesterfield  would  also  thus  explain  Shakespeare's 
habit  of  giving  "foolish''  speeches  to  women  :^  to  make  women 
talk  well,  knowledge  of  the  world  and  of  the  biens^ances  is 
needed  ;  while  book-learning  will  suffice  to  provide  harangues  for 
heroes.^ 

Milton  is  probably  alluded  to  as  participating  in  the  "  rudesse 
originale  de  I'invention." '^  His  religion  must  be  considered. a 
fiction  to  make  his  epic  take.^ 

Addison  and  his  Spectator ^  with  which  Collins^  would  have 
Montesquieu  familiar,  is  pretty  clearly  imitated  in  passages  of 
the  Lettres  persanes}^  There  are  also  other  allusions. ^^  Pope, 
whose  system  our  author  is  accused  of  following,^^  has  the  honor 
of  being  the  only  participant  in  the  Quarrel  who  felt  the  grandeur 
of  Homer. ^^  The  dramatists,  concerning  whom  the  writer  proba- 
bly knew  very  little,  are  categorically  disposed  of: 

"leurs  pieces  ressemblent  bien  moins  a  des  productions  r^gulieres  de  la  nature, 
qu'a  ces  jeux  dans  lesquels  elle  a  suivi  des  hasards  heureux."  ^* 


ip.  iScF.,  11,31. 

2  Especially  for  inventions  [P,  &  F.,  ii,  182). 

3P.  &  F,  II,  31.  ^P,  &  F. ,  II,  48. 

^  The  heroines  are  directly  called  sottes. 

6vii,  184,  sw/>.,  p.  114.  ^ IV,  356. 

^P.  &  F.,  II,  19.     He  is  again  referred  to,  iv,  207  ;   and  is  likened  to  Giulio 
Romano,  vii,  163. 
^Loc.  eit.  10  Cf.  inf.,  p.  189.  "  V,  378  ;  vii,  347. 

12  VI,    117,    143-4,    154.     Cf.    P.    &  F,    ii,    484.     M.   seems  to  endorse  the 
"Whatever  is  is  right,"  if  not  the  natural  religion  doctrine. 

13  VII,  158  :  P.  &  P.,  II,  29-30.  i*vii,  169. 


152  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

It  seems  indeed  that  the  bulk  of  the  President's  knowledge 
and  appreciation  was  rather  for  the  more  solid  writers  of  English, 
than  for  that  nation's  stock  of  belles-lettres,  pure  and  simple. 
Collins^  is  right  in  affirming  that  "to  our  poets,  he  seldom 
refers,"  whether  or  not  he  is  equally  safe  in  stating  that  "  we  had 
nothing  to  teach  him  in  style  and  in  the  art  of  composition."  ^ 

Among  the  "heavy"  authors  whom  Collins  signalizes  as  of 
special  value  to  Montesquieu  are  Hobbes,  Sidney,  Harrington, 
Burnet  and  Echard,  Stowe's  Survey  of  London,  Mandeville's  Fable 
of  the  Bees,  and  travellers  in  large  number,  to  nearly  all  of  whom, 
in  fact,  there  are  references  or  allusions.^  With  Locke  he  was 
"  intimately  acquainted,"  '*  a  statement  which,  without  going  into 
details,  any  student  of  the  sources  of  the  Loh  will  fully  substan- 
tiate.^ Locke  is  directly  mentioned  in  connection  with  his  fondness 
for  flattery,^  is  quoted  with  deference  and  called  the  great  instructor 
of  mankind.^  More,  "  qui  parlait  plutot  de  ce  qu'il  avait  lu  que 
de  ce  qu'il  avait  pens6,"  and  Harrington,  in  his  Oceana,  did  not 
satisfactorily  dispose  of  the  personal  equation.^ 

He  rather  distrusts  Bolingbroke.  "Je  ne  me  souciais  pas 
d'apprendre  la  morale  sous  lui."  ®  This  philosopher  writes  with 
warmth  but  is  too  iconoclastic.^^  Warburton,  who  treated  Boling- 
broke severely,  whose  review  of  the  latter's  philosophy  is  allowed 
to  contain  some  fine  things,  along  with  others  more  "imaginaires,"  ^^ 
is  addressed  and  complimented  directly  for  his  "  magnifiques 
ouvrages  "  and  his  defense  of  the  natural  religion.^^  Similar  fine 
speeches  are  made  to  Hume,  who  had  the  kindness  to  send  a  criti- 
cism of  the  Lois  and  his  Inquiry  Concerning  the  Human  Under- 


^Loc.  di.  ^Cf.  inf.,  p.  189. 

^ Other  such  names,  who  are  held  to  have  produced  "livres  bien  Writs''  are 
Bangor,  Tillotson,  Praats  (sic)— P.  &  F.,  ii,  33. 

*  Collins,  Ibid. 

^  Especially  for  the  separation  of  powers.  See  Oncken,  Fuzier-Herman,  Koch, 
Pietsch. 

«ii,  101.  'i,  31  ;  II,  298.  »\,  414 ;  cf.  mp.,  p.  53. 

»P.  &F.,  II,  165-6.  ^»vii,  432. 

"P.  &  F.,  II,  63.  12  yjj^  43i_3^ 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  153 

standing — "qui   ne   peut   partir   que   d'un    esprit    extrdmement 
philosophique."  ^ 

As  for  Shaftesbury,  he  is  the  fourth  of  the  great  poets.^ 

8. 
Technique — Style. 

The  root  of  the  matter  is  approached  by  the  President  in  what 
may  seem  an  undecided  and  even  a  timorous  way.  He  is  not 
sure  about  all  the  things  that  ought  to  count ;  but  he  is  quite 
certain  about  some  things  that  ought  to  count,  and  is  equally 
positive  that  some  other  things  should  never  count. 

Is  the  expression  in  itself  the  main  thing  ?  Or,  more  mildly, 
has  the  matter  of  style  a  considerable  importance  ?  It  is  in  beating 
about  these  questions  that  our  author  shows  wavering. 

A  significant  passage  in  which  he  lays  down  broadly  the  princi- 
ples that  he  will  adopt,  is  the  following : 

' '  Un  homme  d'  esprit  est,  dans  ses  ouvrages,  cr^ateur  de  dictions,  de  tours  et  de 
conceptions  ;  il  habille  sa  pens^e  a  sa  mode,  la  forme,  la  cr^e  par  des  fafons  de 
parler  eloignees  du  vulgaire,  mais  qui  ne  paraissent  pas  dtre  mises  pour  s'en 
Eloigner.  Un  homme  qui  ^crit  bien  n'^crit  pas  commeon  a  ^crit,  mais  comme  il 
^crit."3 

This  then  is  the  secret — individuality  without  exaggeration  or 
affectation,  a  subtle  skill  that  is  not  too  evident,"^  distinction  and 
superiority  without  unpleasing  presumption. 

On  the  other  hand,  Montesquieu  pleads  for  simplicity ;  ^  and 
there  it  is  easy  to  overreach  oneself.  He  approves  the  book  of 
Boulainvillers  as  written  "sans  aucun  art"^  and  in  connection 
with  laws,  which  should  be  written  with  simple  reason  rather  than 

^  vir,  321,  327.  It  must  be  said,  though,  that  Hume  is  mildly  rebuked  when  he 
attacks  the  church,  and  that  Montesquieu  writes  with  equal  warmth,  of  his 
character  at  least,  to  a  third  party  ( vii,  435). 

2  VII,  171. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  7  ;  cf.  swp.,  p.  54.  ^Cf.  the  ars  celareariem,  sup.,  p.  42. 

^vii.  140.— "Une  des  choses  qui  nous  plait  le  plus,  c'est  le  naif  ;  mais  c' est 
aussi  le  style  le  plus  dificile  §-  attraper"— because  it  is  just  between  the  noble  and 
the  bas  ;  cf .  sup. ,  p.  43. 

«  V,  432. 


154  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

with  artful  logic  or  rhetoric,  he  observes  for  general  application 
that,  "  Pexpression  directe  s'entend  toujours  mieux  que  Fexpression 
r^flechie."  ^  This  perhaps  may  be  meant  only  for  purposes  of 
clearness ;  for  elsewhere  he  allows  that  a  style  may  be  studied, 
that  we  learn  how  to  write  in  the  silence  of  the  workshop.^ 

As  to  the  importance  of  form,  it  is  true  that  he  seems  to  slight 
it,  in  showing  easy  indulgence  to  the  critics  who  would  change  his 
expressions,^  as  in  asking  a  correspondent  to  judge  "  m^me  sur 
les  fautes  de  style."  ^  The  worth  of  a  work  cannot  be  judged  by 
its  style ;  because  "  souvent  on  a  dit  gravement  des  choses  pu- 
4riles ;  souvent  on  a  dit  en  badinant  des  v^rites  tr^s  s^rieuses."  ^ 

Yet  he  has  recognized  how  much  the  sciences,  for  example, 
gain  by  being  treated  "  d'une  mani^re  ing^nieuse  et  delicate."  ^ 
Those  very  laws  which  require  simplicity  do  not  thereby  eliminate 
style — they  even  require  other  of  its  qualities,  such  as  concision 
and  majesty.^ 

What  is  really  troubling  the  President  is  that  he  falls  into  the 
very  common  confusion  between  style  and  ornament,  instead  of 
regarding  the  one  as  the  texture  and  the  other  as  the  finish.  As 
just  seen,  he  has  not  insisted  upon  the  interweaving  of  matter  and 
manner ;  he  is  apt  to  regard  the  warp  and  woof  of  discourse  as  a 
question  of  mere  rhetoric,  which  may  be  laid  on  or  not,  from  the 
outside — according  to  one's  fancy.  From  the  outside,  too,  this  is 
naturally  the  thing  most  readily  discerned  and  appropriated.  And 
since  he  is  strong  in  his  condemnation  of  unsupported  rhetoric,  he 
is  naturally  not  sure  about  style,  tending  to  view  it  as  a  facile  and 
suspicious  sort  of  technique.  That  is  why  he  can  insist,  as  has 
been  seen,  that  the  subject  is  the  all  important  thiug,^  and  why  he 
felicitates  himself,  in  the  Temple  de  G'nide,^  that  his  description  is 

1 V,  403,  405.  ^P.  &  R,  II,  10,  cf.  sup.,  p.  125. 

=*  VII,  273.     But  cf.  mp. ,  pp.  121-4. 

^vn,  273.  5  VII,  82.  ^yji^  81, 

■^v,  403,  405.  But  they  are  too  often,  especially  the  mediaeval  monuments, 
"  pu^riles,  gauches,  idiotes  ;  elles  n'atteignent  point  le  but ;  pleines  de  rh^torique, 
et  vides  de  sens,  frivoles  dans  le  fond,  et  gigantesques  dans  le  style." — (v,  258) 
Or  else,  ''froids,  sees,  insipides  et  durs"  (v,  437). 

«Cf.  mp.,  p.  87.  »n,  9. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  155 

"non  pas  im  ornement  du  sujet,  mais  une  partie  du  sujet  meme" 
and  that  "  les  ornements  de  son  po^me  en  sont  aussi  des  parties 
necessaires/^  ^  That  is  why  he  is  able  to  penetrate  the  connection 
between  simplicity  and  majesty.^  That  is  why,  too,  he  is  in  doubt 
as  to  whether  or  not  he  likes  a  lofty  style.  A  work  of  philosophy 
would  be  a  "  bel  ouvrage,"  almost  equal  to  the  Koran,^  if  it  were 
adorned  with  high  and  sublime  words,  mingled  with  bold  figures 
and  mysterious  allegories. — 

"Cependant,  s'il  te  faut  dire  ce  que  je  pense,  je  ne  m'accommode  guere  du 
style  figur^.  II  y  a,  dans  notre  Alcoran,  un  grand  nombre  de  petites  choses,  qui 
me  paraissent  toujours  telles,  quoiqu'elles  soient  relev^es  par  la  force  et  la  vie  de 
1' expression."  * 

The  "  figured  style  "  is  clearly  out  of  place  "  dans  une  narration 
qui  doit  6tre  aisee.''  ^ 

Montesquieu's  detailed  remarks  on  style  will  naturally  deal 
from  his  conception  of  the  subject  rather  with  its  superficial  and 
rhetorical  aspects,  than  with  its  more  intrinsic  and  impalpable 
elements.  He  has  much  to  say  about  ornament,  declamation, 
antithesis  and  the  like,  and  less  to  say  about  qualities  or  kinds. 

Continuing  his  remonstrances  against  ornament,  he  objects 
with  equal  strength  to  the  "  fleurs  '^  which  Livy  threw  upon  the 
"  colosses  d'antiquit^,"  ^  as  well  as  to  those  with  which  Quintus 
Curtius  covered  Alexander.^  He  dislikes,  in  Voltaire,  the  pre- 
tentious and  the  recherchL^  Modern  preciousness  is  not  always 
true  delicacy ;  ^  a  saillie  is  hardly  to  blame  because  it  wounds  the 

^  Here,  by  a  curious  twist,  he  would  seem  himself  to  advocate  the  idea  that  style, 
considered  architecturally,  is  a  question  less  of  decoration  than  of  intrinsic 
construction,  and  that  the  former  must  spring  from  the  latter.  This  is  of  course 
broadly  true.  But  the  danger  is  that,  by  a  bold  leap,  skipping  style,  he  has  made 
the  rapprochement  between  the  matter  and  the  ornament.  Which  hardly  clarifies 
the  problem.  A  reference  to  his  initial  paragraph,  to  his  own  ideas  of  individu- 
ality, distinction  and  artistic  creation,  may  show  what  just  here  he  has  missed. 

^v,  403.  3Cf.  swp.,  p.  133.        .  *i,  312. 

^Mel  in.,  p.  48.  «n,  150. 

'P.  &  F.,  II,  46-7.  The  first  author  is  looked  upon  askance  as  a  dedamateur,  the 
second  as  a  rheteur. 

8P.  &  F.,  II,  58. 

*  VII,  346.  A  propos  of  translating  the  Bible,  where  these  delieatesses  are  out  of 
place. 


166  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

direct  vision  of  a  geometer ;  ^  but  it  shines  to  advantage  only  in 
its  proper  setting : 

''Les  traits  saillants  ne  doivent  6tre  que  sur  les  tissus  d'or:  ils  sont  pu^rils 
quand  le  sujet  est  pu^ril."  ' 

Most  decided  are  his  deliverances  against  rhetoric  and  bombast. 
"  Le  style  enfl6  et  emphatique  est  si  bien  le  plus  ais6,"  etc.^  Just 
this  sort  of  style  makes  the  "  ouvrage  d'ostentation ; "  *  and  osten- 
tation characterizes  rhetoric  and  oratory,^  while  it  should  be 
absent  from  a  narrative  of  plain  action.® 

The  King  Cambyses'  vein  is  not  difficult  to  acquire : 

"Le  talent  de  la  declamation  est  le  plus  commun  de  tous  ;  les  jeunes  gens  qui 
veulent  ^crire  commencent  tou jours  par  la."  ' 

Oriental  "expressions  sublimes"  may  "bore"  (sic)  even  to  the 
clouds.^  Elaborate  figures  and  exclamations  are  derided  in 
the  Academy.^  Such  things  are  not  the  true  language  of  the 
Graces.  "  Ces  froides  exagerations,"  far  from  honoring  a  mistress, 
rather  dishonor  "le  fade  passion^  qui  les  met  sans  cesse  en 
usage."  ^"  Worst  of  all,  rhetoric  and  poetry  may  show  the  use 
of  ignoble  arts,  such  as  flattery. ^^ 

The  qualities  ^^  of  style  upon  which  Montesquieu  lays  stress 
are  not  exactly  those  which  the  rhetorics  usually  recommend. 
Elegance  or  beauty  is  not  distinctively  mentioned.  Force  finds  its 
recipe  in  imaginative  vividness ;  ^^  excessive  strength  is  perhaps 
criticized  in  the  "  style  bardie  "  of  the  Greeks.^'*  Clearness  is  not 
expressly  commanded,  unless  simplicity  and  the  "expression 
directe  "  imply  this.  Facility  of  perception,  however,  and  econ- 
omy of  attention  are  general  requisites  for  the  soul.^^ 


ii,  397.  ^P.  &F.,  II,  13. 

^  VII,  176 — quoted  sup.,  p.  43.     Emphase  leaves  even  Venus  cold  (vn,  469). 
*v,  403.  5yii^  171,         6 IV,  434.  ^p,  &  F.,  i,  216.  ^i,  52. 

«i,  247— quoted  swp.,  p.  101.  ^°  vii,  464-5.     ^^  v,  488. 

^■^  Hardly  to  be  distinguished  from  the  qualities  of  Literature,  cf .  sup. ,  p.  i 
and  again  under  Art,  sup.,  p.  35. 
"  '*  Donner  des  images  bien  sensibles  fait  la  force,"  P.  &  F.,  ii,  31. 
i*P.  &  F,  II,  30.     But  tragedy  "a  besoin  de  force,"  P.  &  F,  ii,  6. 
^5  VII,  124^5.     Cf.  sup,  p.  43. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  157 

More  specifically,  he  would  have  one  learn  '^  a  ^crire  avec  ordre, 
h  raisonner  juste  et  a  bien  former  ses  raisonuements/'  ^  In  this 
connection,  he  insists  once  more  upon  suite.^  Monotony  is  weari- 
some :  "  le  m6me  ordre  des  p^riodes,  longtemps  continue,  accable 
dans  une  harangue,"  ^  and  variety  itself  has  a  vicious  tendency  to 
become  uniformity,  as  illustrated  in  the  antithetical  style — "  le  tour 
de  phrase,  toujours  le  meme  et  toujours  uniforme,  deplalt  extreme- 
ment.''  * 

Concision  is  a  quality  which  he  lauds  in  Suetonius,^  in  d'Alem- 
bert,^  and  in  the  law  of  the  Twelve  Tables/  "  Lorsque  la  chose 
dit  tout,  il  ne  faut  point  de  nouvelles  paroles."^  He  seems  to 
prefer  the  vers  serres  of  the  Latin. ^  Brevity  or  length,  however, 
really  depends  upon  the  nature  of  the  subject  to  be  treated.  "  II 
est  vrai  qu^il  y  a  des  occasions  oil  la  beauts  de  la  pens^e  consiste 
dans  la  brievet^."  ^^  For  example,  in  epigrams,  and  in  close 
reasoning.  But  in  descriptions  or  in  the  expression  of  passions, 
wordiness  is  in  a  way  required."     In  the  former  case : 

"On  ne  saurait  trop  ^carter  le  superflu  :  toute  parole,  toute  idee  inutile  est 
pernicieuse,  parce  que  1' esprit,  la  croyanUimportante,  se  fatigue  ou  se  d^gotite." 

Word-painting,  on  the  other  hand,  or  psychological  analysis  would 
naturally  be  parleur,  to  express  adequately  the  number  of  things 
seen  by  the  eye  or  felt  by  the  heart — as  well  as  to  impress  the  fact 
that  the  spirit  "  a  vu  une  infinite  de  choses  qu'ils  n^avaient  pas  su 
distinguer."  ^^  He  posits  here  one  colleague  of  concision,  which  is 
suggestiveness ;  and  he  indicates  one  enemy,  which  is  clearness. 
All  of  these  qualities  are  accounted  for,  and  a  golden  mean  sug- 
gested, in  the  following  passage  : 

"Pour  bien  ecrire,  il  faut  sauter  les  idees  interm^diaires,  assez  pour  n'^tre  pas 
ennuyeux  ;  pas  trop,  de  peur  de  n'^tre  pas  entendu.  Ce  sont  ces  suppressions 
heureuses  qui  ont  fait  dire  a  M.  Nicole  que  tons  les  bons  livres  dtaient  doubles."  ^^ 

p.  86.  3  yjj^  123. 

129.  fi  VII,  421. 

le  style  en  doit  ^tre  concis." 

6.  i«/6tQ5.,  p.  42. 

"76td.,  p.  45  ;  cf.  sup.,  p.  86. 

^^  On  which  he  comments  "  Kendre  plus  clair."     In  fact,  it  would  seem  that  the 
principle  of  nebulous  suggestion,   touched  on  in  the  quotation,  finds  root  more 
readily  in  concision  than  in  its  opposite.     Cf.  next  page. 
i»P,  tfei?:,  II,  14. 


ip.  &F., 

II,  10.                      ^Ci.  sn 

*  VII,  127, 

,  cf.  sup.,  p.  38.         5 VII,  ] 

'v,  403. 

For  laws  generally,  '*le  si 

8P.  &F., 

,  II,  13.                     ,Ubid., 

158  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

This  is  somewhat  his  idea  of  mystery/  He  applies  connotation 
to  words,  declaring  that  a  large  word  implies  a  large  thought.^ 
Thereanent,  he  mentions  onomatopeia,  as  in  trinquer. 

In  regard  to  harmony,  though  the  Academy  is  perhaps  too 
insistent  upon  this  point,^  Montesquieu  considers  it  of  importance, 
and  believes  that  he  himself  has  mastered  its  secret : 

"  Bien  des  gens  en  France,  surtout  M.  de  la  Motte,  soutiennent  qu'il  n'y  a  pas 
d'harnionie.  Je  prouve  qu'il  y  en  a,  comrae  Diogene  prouvait  a  Z^non  qu'il  y 
avait  du  mouvement  en  faisant  un  tour  de  chambre."  * 

Diction  is  also  a  matter  that  demands  consideration.  One 
may  say  whether  or  not  a  word  is  French,  but  whether  or  not 
it  is  a  ^good  word,'  provided  it  does  not  go  against  grammar, 
depends  upon  "  Pusage  qu'un  homme  d'esprit  en  pourra  faire." 
For  he  is  the  arbiter  of  his  usage,  the  creator  of  his  diction.* 
Our  author  comments  at  length  upon  the  effect  of  single  words, 
in  passages  from  Rousseau  and  Ovid.®  Word  value,  one  may 
gather,  is  especially  prominent  in  epithets  and  epigrams.  Still, 
from  a  practical  and  particularly  from  a  legal  standpoint :  ^ 

*'  Les  paroles  ne  forment  point  un  corps  de  d^lit ;  elles  ne  restent  que  dans 
I'idee.  La  plupart  du  temps  elles  ne  signifient  point  par  elles-memes,  mais  par  le 
tondont  on  les  dit.  Souvent,  en  redisant  les  mdmes  paroles,  on  ne  rend  pas  le 
m6me  sens ;  ce  sens  depend  de  la  liaison  qu' elles  ont  avec  d'autres  clioses. 
Quelquefois  le  silence  exprime  plus  que  tous  les  discours.  II  n'y  a  rien  de  si 
Equivoque  que  tout  cela."  ^ 

Coming  to  figures,  we  have  heard  him  reprehend  that  sort  of 
style,^  and  reprimand  the  forty  heads  of  the  Academy  as  "  toutes 
remplies  de  figures,  de  m^taphores  et  d'antith^ses."  ^^  Compari- 
sons, which  should  show  a  climactic  order,"  should  progress 
within  the  same  class  :  the  comparison  should  be  made  between  a 

^Cf.  sup.,  p.  41. 

2  P.  &  F.y  II,  9.     The  suggestive  example  given  is  :  styloceratohyo'idien. 

3 1,  248.    Quoted  sup.,  p.  101.  *P.  &F.,i,  83. 

'P.  &F.,  II,  7,  cf.  sup.,  p.  54.  « P.  &  F.,  II,  15-16,  41  ff. 

^  In  connection  with  the  counting  of  **  indiscreet  words  "  as  forming  the  crime 
of  Use-majesie. 

8 IV,  80.  »i,  312.     Quoted  sup.,  p.  155. 

10 1,  247.— Cf.  sup.,  p.  101. 

"  "Ou  1' esprit  doit  toujours  gagner  et  jamais  perdre." — That  is,  in  greatness, 
or  in  fineness  and  delicacy. — vii,  140-1. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  159 

manner  and  a  manner,  an  action  and  an  action,  rather  than 
between  disparate  things. 

For  climaxes  also  transpositions  are  allowable,  particularly  in 
poetry.^  The  order  of  things,  it  is  true,  sometimes  counters  the 
order  of  expression.^ 

Most  important,  in  connection  with  his  own  application,  are 
the  remarks  on  antithesis.^  It  will  be  found,  with  some  surprise, 
perhaps,  that  these  are  generally  of  a  derogatory  turn.  The 
beauty  of  the  antithesis  is  a  "  beaute  d^jpposition,'^  and  he  dis- 
tinguishes clearly  enough  between  the  false  and  the  true  kinds  :  ^ 

''  On  peut  remarquer  ici  combien  est  grande  la  difference  des  antitheses  d'id^es 
d'avee  les  antitheses  d'expression.  L'antithese  d' expression  n'est  pas  cach^e  ; 
celle  d'idees  I'est ;  I'une  a  toujours  le  meme  habit,  1' autre  en  change  comme  on 
veut ;  I'une  est  variee,  1' autre  non."  ^ 

But  an  antithesis  is  a  narrow  thing,^  and  it  is  the  false  and 
easy  class  which  so  often  recur,  when  the  opposition  is  against 
hon  sens,  or  is  common  and  trivial,  or  is  too  recherch^ej  In  such 
cases,  the  figure  causes  no  surprise  and  is  displeasing  and  defec- 
tive. The  antitheses  should  be  in  a  work  by  nature  and  not  by 
force ;  "  car  pour  lors  la  surprise  ne  tombe  que  sur  la  sottise  de 
Pauteur."  His  "  vicious  uniformity  "  ^  is  found  not  only  in  the 
fine  arts,  but  in  authors  like  St.  Augustine  ^  and  Saint-Evremond, 
who  contrast  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  their  sentences  in 
continual  antitheses.  ^^ 

"Letour  de  phrase,  toujours  le  meme  et  toujours  uniforme,  d^plait  extr^me- 
ment ;  ce  contraste  perpetuel  devient  symetrie,  et  cette  opposition  toujours 
recherchee  devient  uniformity.  L' esprit  y  trouve  si  peu  de  variete  que,  lorsque 
vous  assez  vu  une  partie  de  la  phrase,  vous  devinez  toujours  1' autre  ;  vous  voyez 
des  mots  opposes,  mais  opposes  de  la  meme  maniere  ;  vous  voyez  un  tour  de 
phrase,  mais  c'est  toujours  le  meme." 

Descriptions,  it  has  been  seen,  should  be  intimately  connected 

ip.  &F.,  II,  12. 

'P.  &  F.,  n,  43. — But  he  has  insisted,  in  connection  with  surprise,  upon 
climactic  arrangement.    Cf.  under  Art,  sup.,  p.  41. 

^  A  derivative  of  the  great  principle  of  contrast,  cf.  sup.,  p.  40. 

*  While  quoting  and  praising  Florus  as  exemplifying  the  right  kind. 

5  VII,  138-9.  6  P.  <fe  P. ,  II,  51.  "f  VII,  140.  « Cf.  sup. ,  p.  38. 

'  Also  quoted  disparagingly  for  this  fault,  P.  &  F.,  u,  13.— Cf.  P.  &  F.,  ii,  51. 

"  vn,  127. 


160  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

with  the  subject,  not  "  6trang^res  et  recherch^es."  ^  And  so  for 
episodes  in  general.  Other  such  hors  d^oeuvres  may  find  place 
here,  for  instance  digressions,  of  which  he  says  : 

' '  Je  vols  des  gens  qui  s'  effarouchent  des  digressions  ;  je  crois  que  ceux  qui 
savent  en  faire  sont  comme  les  gens  qui  out  de  grands  bras  :  ils  atteignent  plus 
loin."  2 

A  preface,  which  seldom  sins  by  being  too  short,^  is  a  very 
tiresome  thing,*  as  is  also  a  dedicatory  epistle.  For  the  sake 
of  variety,  he  will  dedicate  his  work  to  those  who  will  not 
read  him.^ 


1 II,  9,  cf.  mp.,  p.  86.  2  vij^  173,  3  j^  453^ 

*i,  53.  ^P.&F,,  n,  177. 


r"-^ 


BOOK  IV. 
DlSCUSSIOISr   OF  DOOTEINE, 


CHAPTER  XVI. 
CRITICISM   OF   DOCTRINE. 

In  discussing  the  doctrine,  those  points  only  will  as  a  rule  be 
taken  up  which  have  not  already  been  submitted  in  the  presenta- 
tion, as  immediate  explanation  or  essential  linking. 

Considering  first  the  division  on  Art^  in  general,  some  comment 
on  Montesquieu^ s  view  of  the  term,  its  content  and  significance, 
seems  advisable.  His  initial  discrimination  ^  between  the  indus- 
trial and  the  fine  arts,  and  the  emphasis  laid  on  the  former,  gives 
at  once  his  point  of  view.  Art  is  a  human  phenomenon  which 
the  wise  statesman  will  allow  for.  He  will  even  study  its  mani- 
festations disinterestedly,  without  ^lan  or  rapture,  guided  by  the 
rules  to  which  long  experience  has  attained  and  by  the  promptings 
of  a  nice  taste.  He  will  judge  it  chiefly  for  its  pleasure-giving 
capacity,  and  thereby  for  its  indirect  but  basic  utility. 

The  point  of  pleasure  ^  is  certainly  well  taken,  if  the  word  is 
made  broad  enough  in  its  implication  and  high  enough  in  its 
quality,  if  he  means  the  intellectual  delight,  the  finer  emotional 
responsiveness  set  in  vibration  by  a  true  perception  of  true  art. 
But  if  he  means  all  pleasures  of  any  kind,  what  shall  we  say? 
One  may  allow  the  extension  to  fantaime  and  perhaps  to  volupU^ — 
but  how  with  the  declension  to  amusement  and  agrementf^  With 
due  respect  for  the  importance  of  an  appeal,  for  which  the  word 

^Sup.,  pp.  20  ff.  2p   20. 

'  P.  21.  From  this  point  on,  the  words  supra  and  infra  will  generally  be  omitted, 
when  the  reference  is  clearly  to  the  present  work. 

*P.  22. 

^  P.  23.  It  may  be  remembered  that  even  Buffon  arranged  his  classification^ 
to  be  ''agreeable." 

161 


162  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

^  interesting '  is  now  a  frequent  cloak,  and  certainly  without  taking 
a  false  step  on  treacherous  moral  grounds,  it  may  still  be  remarked 
that  the  President  could  easily  have  added  a  little  more  loftiness 
to  his  conception  of  Art.  Th^  notion  that  its  first  purpose  is  to 
be  pleasing  and  amusing,  without  explicit  and  essential  reference 
to  either  truth  or  beauty,  is  likely  first  of  all  to  lead  to  a  dis- 
proportionate sense  of  values.  The  big  things  may  no  longer 
be  held  the  best,  the  most  needful ;  and  ressorts  good  and  harmless 
enough  in  themselves,  such  as  wit,  excitement,  gallantry,  actuality, 
"  story-telling,"  may  become  startlingly  obtrusive. 

This  our  author  realized  well  enough  for  items  like  esfprity  how- 
ever much  he  may  have  inclined  his  ear  in  the  doing.^  It  should 
also  be  said  that  his  conception  admitted  of  the  higher  and  ultimate 
pleasure  that  may  spring  from  pain.  Else  why  choose  terror  as  the 
true  passion  of  tragedy.^  ^ 

Having  made  poorer  pleasure  the  goal,  he  proceeds,  humanly 
enough,  to  doubt  whether  that  is  sufficient.  The  statement  that 
we  would  be  miserable  without  the  arts  is  the  cultural  plea.^  Yet 
he  is  afraid  that  they  are  small  tastes,''  coming  by  way  of  compen- 
sation. If  they  are  truly  needs — and  the  argument  is  insidious — 
they  have  thereby  an  evident  use.  The  question  of  utility,^  though 
he  would  reject  it,  is  disturbing  him  throughout,  and  openly  or 
indirectly  he  refers  the  matter  to  that  standard  in  the  last  analysis. 
There  is  a  hierarchy  higher  than  art.  At  best,  he  passes  from  the 
economist's  viewpoint  to  that  of  the  wise  aud  universal  legislator, 
who  believes  that  art  is  a  more  or  less  pleasant  and  dangerous 
thing,  to  be  watched,  controlled  and  approved  where  it  operates 
for  the  good  of  the  state.® 

With  regard  to  special  points,  one  may  applaud  his  insistent 
principle  of  relativity,  whether  as  causing  the  subjectivity  of 
appreciation  and  production,^  whether  as  of  abstract  qualities,^  or 
as  sanctioning  the  divergences  of  taste.^  This  gainsays  iron  stan- 
dards, and  means  tolerance,  catholicity,  individualism.  But  here 
there  is  hedging.     If  his  suggestion  of  the  comparative  method 

^  Cf.  inf.^  under  Application,  p.  189. 

2P.  115.  « P.  24.  " P.  27,  note  5.  ^ p,  24  S. 

^  Especially  in  connection  with  luxe,  p.  27. 

'P.  29.  8p35^  9 P.  46. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  163 

tends  similarly  to  good  in  that  he  would  erect  no  scale/  if  there  is 
more  in  heaven  and  earth  than  is  dreamt  of  in  the  classic  rules, ^  if 
he  is  disposed  to  admit  great  genius,  visible  and  overweening,  as 
the  arbiter  ^ — yet  in  the  main  and  for  the  large  majority,  classicism 
is  a  tolerably  safe  procedure ;  and  the  remonstrance  against  rulers 
is  usually  a  remonstrance  against  rules  as  critically  applied  to 
himself 

Similarly  restricting,  the  individual  is  Montesquieu's  implicit 
reference  of  the  question  to  his  other  standard  of  socialism,  his 
dimly  expressed  belief  that  it  is  the  greatest  good  of  the  greatest 
number  that  counts.  Catholicity  maintains  the  many  more  pro- 
perly than  the  one ;  and  a  centered  individualism  might  mean  a 
worse  despotism  than  the  classic,  in  that  it  would  be  a  misrule. 
Yet  we  may  thank  his  strong  and  searching  mind  for  more  faith  in 
the  new  type,  in  the  individual  right,  than  could  well  be  expected 
of  his  age.* 

For  the  other  kind  of  classicism,  his  worship  of  antiquity, 
sincere  and  helpful  as  it  was,  is  not  always  admirable.  It  is  clearly 
not  ancient  art  that  he  knows  and  loves ;  ^  nor  is  it  the  most 
antique  antiquity.  "  II  ne  connut  jamais  beaucoup  cette  premiere 
antiquite,  simple,  naturelle,  naive.''  ^  Faguet ''  has  indicated,  with 
kindly  touch  and  most  favorable  interpretation,  the  ancient  ideal 
of  the  President : 

' '  II  y  a  une  antiquity  d'  une  certaine  espSce,  non  point  fausse,  mM^e  seulement 
d'un  pen  de  convention,  et  vraie  d'une  verite  dramatique  et  oratoire,  une  antiquity 
faite  de  la  naivete  de  Plutarque,  de  la  noblesse  de  Tite-Live,  et  des  regrets  de 
Tacite,  et  des  coleres  de  Juvenal,  et  des  grands  cris  des  Stoiciens  qui  met  dans 
1' esprit  des  lettres  un  ideal  excellent  et  precieux  de  vertu  austere,  de  simplicity 
hautaine,  de  frugalite  unpeu  fastueuse,  d'energie  et  de  Constance  infati gables,"  etc. 


1  P.  33. — Kemembering  that  he  did  not  grasp  or  rightly  value  the  total  method, 
that  he  gives  but  a  bare  superficial  catalogue  of  likenesses,  with  no  dexterous 
transferal  of  vocabulary,  or  reciprocal  setting  off  of  qualities — to  which  last, 
however,  his  principle  of  contrast  should  tend. 

»P.  52. 

^  P.  53. — For  Comeille  or  Homer,  not  fo;-  Shakespeare  or  Voltaire. 

*0f  which  perhaps  the  most  forceful  expression  is  the  Chapter  on  Uniformity 
(y,  412-13,  and  mp.,  p.  52). 

^Faguet,  XVIII^  sitde,  p.  146. 

«Ste.-Beuve,  C.  de  X.,  vii,  43,  '' XVIU^  si^cle,  p.  147, 


.«'■'-' 


164  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

For  closer  judgment,  it  would  be  necessary  to  add  Montesquieu's 
slight  acquaintance  with  the  Greeks,  his  admiration  for  Cicero  and 
Florus/ 

The  relations  of  art  with  climate^  seems  excellently  and 
moderately  set  forth,  allowing  a  little  more  for  the  slower  and 
deeper  expression  of  the  North.  It  would  seem  best,  too,  to 
allow  the  national  character  as  an  intermediary  ground,  rather  than 
to  pass  at  once  from  physical  dispositions  and  sensibilities,  as 
efficient  causes,  to  artistic  product  as  effect.  But  Montesquieu's 
general  tendency,  as  a  budding  sensationalist,  was  to  make  too 
much  of  ^  nerves '  and  *  fibres '  and  our  physical  organs.^  Hence, 
thinks  Lanson,'*  he  has  the  right  to  be  hailed  as  a  precursor,  he  is 
constituting  a  psycho-physics,  "  qui  d^tronera  les  classiques  Etudes 
d'immaterielles  operations  d'une  ame  ind^pendante  de  ses  organes." 
It  is  doubtful,  however,  if  the  President  may  be  credited  with  so 
weighty  an  honor.  He  is  hardly  sufficiently  explicit  and  thorough- 
going.^ 

As  to  nature,^  one  may  heartily  approve  his  principles  of 
discovery  and  selection.  He  is  no  naturalist,  no  believer  in 
indiscriminate  presentation.  The  "  imitating ''  is  rather  a  vague 
and  weak  watchword,  deprived  of  what  specific  sense  it  may  once 
have  had.  The  idea  that  art  should  improve  on  nature — in  so  far 
as  such  improvement  implies  addition  as  well  as  subtraction  and 
arrangement — can  hardly  be  allowed.  Nature  is  not  the  malleable 
material  that  a  I^e  Notre  would  make  her.  We  can  hardly  expect 
much  reverence  for  her  in  Montesquieu's  age,  when  she  was 
regarded  as  a  serviceable  and  unobtrusive  hand-maid. 

His  appreciation  of  external  nature  ^  was  conventional  and  not 

^Cf,  inf,,  under  Literature,  p.  181.  ^  pp  29-30. 

'  P.  28.  He  shared  this  with  other  aestheticians.  E.  g. ,  Villate,  in  his  Gout, 
makes  harmony  dependent  on  the  '' jeu  de  nos  organes"  (p.  277). 

*  Rev.  univ. ,  p.  394. 

^  Dubos  seems  the  real  precursor.  His  chapters  concerning  the  influence  of  the 
physique  and  of  climate  may  have  given  ideas  both  to  M.  and  to  Villate  ;  cf  ■ 
Brunetiere  ( ^r.  de  la  criL,  p.  144). — "Montesquieu,  qui  doit  beaucoup,  aussi  lui, 
k  I'abb^  Dubos,  a  oublie  de  s'en  souvenir; — et  il  s'est  contente  de  le  r^futer." 
Cf.  sup.,  p.  147. 

«  P.  30.  '  p.  31. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  3fontesquieu.  165 

keen.  D'Alembert  believes  him  "  accolitum^  a  ^tudier  la  nature," 
but  Helv^tius  doubts  this  strongly.^  And  Doumic  notes  that  in 
the  Voyages  there  is  no  care  shown  for  the  mountains  or  for  Naples 
— ''  le  charme  ou  I'horreur  d'un  paysage  le  laisse  insensible/'  ^ 

For  art's  qualities,  the  reproach  that  the  GoM  is  too  abstract  is 
hardly  the  worst  that  could  be  made  against  it.^  Montesquieu  has 
usually  been  condemned  rather  for  a  lack  of  philosophy,  of  princi- 
ples and  leading  standards,  than  for  an  excess  thereof.  Surely  he 
is  not  wrong  in  seeking  the  qualities  which  should  characterize 
artistic  production. 

He  may,  however,  be  wrong  in  his  choice  and  valuation  of  these 
properties.  One  may  be  ready  to  accord  the  importance  of  variety, 
contrast,  novelty  and  the  like,  while  making  more  than  he  is  dis- 
posed to  do  of  the  primary  elements — beauty  and  sentiment.^ 

Perhaps  he  takes  beauty  for  granted,  or  holds  it  too  impalpable 
for  more  than  summary  treatment  and  appreciative  recognition. 
Perhaps  he  considers,  what  is  nearer  the  truth,  that  it  is  the 
primum  mobile,  from  which  the  lesser  qualities  evolve,^  and  so 
receives  its  indirect  tribute  through  them.  At  any  rate  there  is 
found  little  more  than  an  uncritical  admiration  of  what  is  "  beau," 
there  is  made  manifest  no  intimate  and  intrinsic  sense  of  the 
beautiful  as  a  necessary  dominance.  He  does  not  say  what  beauty 
is,  but  what  it  is  not.^  He  even  recommends  a  sort  of  hidebound, 
common  beauty,  compact  rather  of  classic  regularity  than  of 
individual  charm. ^ 

This  seems  deficient.  So  do  his  remarks  on  sentiment,  which 
likewise  is  not  posited  as  the  essence.^  It  is  allowed  in  connection 
with  taste,^  but  his  basic  conception  of  it  is  either  cold  and  physical, 
or  else  affected  and  suggestive  of  the  dawning  eighteenth  century 
sentimentality. 

^Mont.,  OeuvreSf  ed.  Didot  (Parrelle),  i,  25. — ''Ses  ouvrages  ont-ils  ce  carac- 
t^re ?  et  son  caractere  le  menait-il  la?  " 

^  Bev.j  p.  928,  cf.  inf.,  p.  167,  note  8.  ^  Saintsbury,  quoted  sup.,  p.  35. 

''Cf.  with  his  list  (p,  35,  sup.),  that  of  G6rard  (GoUt,  p.  2) — the  'sentiments* 
of  novelty,  sublimity,  beauty,  imitation,  harmony,  the  ridiculous,  and  virtue, 

^  Among  which  are  the  "idols"  of  Ste.-Beuve's  suggestion — p.  36. 

« P.  46.  ^  P.  36. 

®P.  37.    He  gives  it  more  place  under  Literature,  cf.  inf.,  p.  179.  ''P.  44. 


166  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

That  he  practically  omits  morality  need  not  cause  any  distur- 
bance. 

His  views  on  variety  as  versus  uniformity,  on  symmetry  and 
order,  seem  good,  if  not  startlingly  new.^  Especially  is  he  to 
be  congratulated  on  seizing  the  great  principle  of  contrast,  in  its 
broadest  and  minutest  applications.^  What  is  sometimes  consid- 
ered a  happy  accident  or  a  dependent  phase  in  artistic  theory  is 
here  exploited  as  an  important  ressort  for  values  and  interest. 
This  is  significant  in  the  light  of  his  own  practice.^ 

Surprise,  connected  therewith,  is  hardly  so  well  conceived,'*  and 
while  the  je  ne  sais  quoi  itself  demands  attention  when  saluted 
by  a  Frenchman,^  the  content  of  his  "  associated  ideas,"  is  not  so 
happy.^  Expense  and  difficulty  are  neither  suitable  objects  for 
suggestiveuess,  nor  charming  inhabitants  of  the  border  land  of 
mystery.'^ 

After  his  appreciation  of  an  antiquity,  comparatively  simple 
if  not  primaeval,^  we  might  expect  some  considerable  admiration 
of  naivete.  In  fact,  the  President  is  delighted  with  the  na'ifj 
wherever  he  finds  it.®  You  may  picture  him  adoring  a  Dresden 
shepherdess  or  playing  in  Trianon  pastorals.  He  would  be  simple 
above  all  things.     But  unfortunately,  as   he   has    expressed  it, 

ip.  38.  ►      ^F.  39.  3 Of.  inf.,  p.  191. 

*  Brunetiere  {Ev.  de  la  crit.,  p.  89),  connects  the  care  for  this  with  a  leaning 
towards  even  less  admirable  ressorts — ^^  Emphase  ou  Preciosite,  ce  que  ces  deux 
defauts  de  1' esprit  et  du  style  ont  de  commun  entre  eux,  c'est  de  chercher  dans  la 
surprise  oii  dans  I'etonneraent,  qu'ils  confondent  avec  I'admiration,  le  principe 
de  la  beauts." 

*  Saintsbury  ridicules  this — "  The  je  ne  sais  quoi,  in  an  attractive,  but  not  tech- 
nically beautiful  girl  is,  it  seems,  due  to  surprise  at  finding  her  so  attractive, 
which,  with  all  respect  to  the  President,  seems  to  be  somewhat  'circular. '  "  (n, 
514).— Cf.  inf.,  p.  175. 

«  P.  43. 

''Gerard  {Gout,  p.  6  f )  recommends  a  moderate  difficulty  in  the  performing — 
and  considers  excessive  simplicity  displeasing. 

^Cf.  sup.,  p.  163. 

^  P.  43.  In  literature,  it  is  what  allures  him  in  the  classics,  especially  in  the 
'Fable.'  Faguet  reproaches  this  ''iddal  un  peu  convenu,  un  peu  livresque,  de 
simplicity  voulue,  de  purete  et  d' innocence  dans  les  moeurs,"  as  tending  towards 
the  easy  and  superficial  optimism  reprimanded  in  the  President.  {XVI 11^  si^de, 
p.  156.) 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  167 

"comment  peut-on  travailler  a  ^tre  naif?''     Thence  his  forced 
contentment  with  the  "  simplicite  vouhie."  ^ 

His  first  definition  of  taste  is  bad,  in  that  he  makes  it  the 
criterion  of  pleasure  rather  than  of  beauty.^  But  he  has  finely 
phrased  the  characteristics  of  "  natural "  taste.  The  division  into 
two  kinds  seems  necessary  and  fairly  stated,  only  he  does  not 
consider  that  a  taste  may  be  so  excessively  "  acquired/'  as  to  be 
artificial  and  fausse.  The  choice  of  France's  cultured  courtiers  as 
the  arbiters  of  aesthetic  elegance  ^  can  hold  good,  as  he  later  very 
well  divines,  only  for  a  certain  kind  of  elegance.  Were  it  not  for 
his  final  recognition  of  popular  standards,*  his  reference  of  all 
things  to  "  tetes  frisees "  and  the  like  would  be  a  quite  prepos- 
terous claim.  One  wohders  if  the  change  was  dictated  by  some 
such  remark  as  that  of  Helvetius,  who  comments  on  "  on  trouve 
a  la  cour  une  d^licatesse  de  goiit.'^ 

"  Oui,  s'il  le  regarde  comme  un  defaut ;  car  tout  ce  qu'il  dit  prouverait  que  ce 
gout  doit  etre  peu  siir.     Hors  la  nature,  y  a-t-il  un  gout  stir  et  vrai  ?  "  ^ 

The  attempt  has  already  been  made  to  reconcile  his  two  appar- 
ently opposing  views.  ^ 

Montesquieu  voyageur^,  Montesquieu  the  critic  of  fine  arts  has 
been  the  subject  of  judgments  as  widely  different  as  that  of  Four- 
nier  de  Flaix,  who  would  have  us  use  him  as  a  guide-book,  "des 
plus  precieux  et  des  plus  spirituels,"  ^  against  Faguet,  who  holds 
him  no  artist  or  sesthetician  at  all.^  The  " enchantement "  on 
which  the  former  writer  insists  becomes,  he  thinks,  a  "  revelation 
complete  "  at  Florence  and  Rome.     Montesquieu  is  "  enchanted  " 

iCf.  m/.,P-  201.  2p44  3p45, 

^P.  47.  ^Loc.  at.,  1,188. 

^Pp.  46-7.  For  his  definitions,  cf.  Villate  {Gout,  p.  235),  who  is  strikingly 
close  to  M. — "Le  Gout  delicat  est  un  discernement  exquis,  que  la  nature  a  mis 
dans  certains  organes,  pour  ddmeler  les  diff^rentes  vertus  des  objets  qui  reinvent 
du  sentiment. ' ' 

"^  Voy.  de  Mont. ,  p.  9. 

^  ''  Voyage  tout  intellectuel  .  .  .  oii  le  m^ditatif  n'est  nullement  diverti  par 
1' artiste,  ou  la  reflexion  n'est  nullement  interrorapue  par  le  spectacle  d'un  monu- 
ment ou  d'un  paysage"  (XVIIP  siecle,  p.  149). — The  last  point  is  well  taken, 
and  to  pardon  the  absoluteness  of  the  first,  one  may  remember  that  it  was  uttered 
before  the  publication  of  the  Voyages. 


168  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

to  such  a  point  "  qu'il  6tablit  les  regies  du  dessin  et  m^me  celles 
de  la  sculpture."  The  perusal  of  these  rules,  one  might  suggest, 
is  very  likely  to  disenchant  the  reader.  The  eulogist  himself  is 
contradictory  as  to  the  President's  valuation  of  antique  art, 
declaring  at  one  moment  that  we  could  desire  no  better  guide 
therefor,  and  at  the  next  that  he  is  accapare  only  by  the  Renais- 
sance. This  is  his  domain,  in  which  he  appears  "  comme  un 
maitre,  un  inspire,  un  r6v§lateur."  Montaigne  shows  unfavorably 
in  contrast  and  the  President  de  Brosses  as  well.^ 

The  point  regarding  Montaigne  had  already  been  made  by  the 
editor^  of  the  Voyages.  As  for  Brosses,  a  glance  at  the  Lettres 
will  show  quite  as  much  regard  for  things  Florentine,  a  lesser 
appreciation  perhaps  of  Michelangelo,  though  quite  as  large  for 
Raphael.^ 

The  writer  in  the  Revue  historique  voices  an  equally  strong 
admiration  of  Montesquieu's  aesthetic  deliverances,^  attributing  to 
him  "  une  connaissance  parfaitement  au  courant  de  toute  la  tech- 
nique des  arts  et  s'int^ressant  en  architecture  aux  proc^d^s  de 
construction  autant  qu'^  Feffet  artistique  des  monuments."  ^ 
Bonnefon,^  too,  credits  liim  with  "  ideas,"  ^  with  thoughtfulness 
and  discernment,  and  with  feeling  present,  though  ironically 
repressed.  Cant^,  laying  more  stress  on  our  author's  social  and 
economic  observations,  apparently  thinks  few  of  his  artistic  utter- 
ances worth  culling.^ 

Of  all  these,  Bonnefon  seems  nearest  the  mark  and  Fournier  de 
Flaix  farthest  from  it.  The  President  has  doubtless  some  things 
of  interest  to  say,  and  shows  knowledge  and  appreciation  along 

^  Fournier  de  Flaix,  Voy.  deMont.,  pp.  9-12. 

^ Barckhausen,  who  likewise  believes  in  Montesquieu's  "passion"  for  the  fine 
arts,  claims  that  some  of  his  judgments  are  "astonishing,"  and  that  he  felt 
much,  even  when  he  would  not  express.     {Voy.y  i,  xxi,  xxxiv). 

3  Brosses,  Lettres,  i,  240  ;  ii,  63  ff. 

*And  an  equally  unconscious  and  significant  side-light  on  his  "procedure" 
in  architecture. 

^Rev.  hist.,  Lix,  130. 

^Rev.  d'Hist.  litt.,u,  129. 

■^  Coming — which  is  important — "  par  la  comparaison." 

^liuova  AntoL,  1894,  567-72. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  169 

certain  lines  ;  but  it  would  be  a  grave  error  to  regard  him  either 
as  a  competent  vademecum  or  a  catholic  critic.  He  frequently 
misses  the  right  points — and  where  he  hits  them,  his  expression  is 
apt  either  to  be  conventional  and  pedestrian,  or  venturous  on  the 
side  of  technique,  or  most  frequently,  a  matter  of  mere  information 
presented  in  a  statistical  way.  He  is  still  the  collector  of  facts, 
the  compiler  of  curious  details  not  immediately  relative  to  artistic 
values. 

Still,  certain  of  his  preferences  and  inferences  are  worth 
remarking.  First  there  is  his  feeling  for  the  Italian^  Renais- 
sance,^ especially  as  expressed  in  Raphael  and  Michelangelo.  He 
may  be  credited  here  with  true  discernment,  however  acquired,  with 
a  right  sense  of  the  forceful  and  of  the  sweet,  of  the  spiritual  and 
of  the  Cyclopean  ;  and  many  divagations  may  be  allowed  to  a 
taste,  which  has  seized  and  balanced  these  contrary  matters. 
There  is  present  perhaps  a  feeling  for  line  rather  than  for  color — 
to  color  he  seems  not  acutely  sensible,  as  shown  in  his  comments 
on  Titian  and  the  Venetian  school.^  There  is  present  also  a  tinc- 
ture of  the  conventional,  a  prepossession  always  hard  to  overcome 
in  regard  to  such  popular  idols  as  Raphael.  This  becomes  more 
conspicuous  in  his  appraising  of  the  Bolognese  school,^  where  he 
defers  completely  to  the  reigning  canons. 

It  is  not  difficult,  remembering  that  modern  reversion  may  also 
be  a  fad  and  modern  ^^  historical  '^  estimates  too  preponderant,  to 
condone  his  ignorance  of  the  Pre-Raphaelites  and  even  his  scorn 
of  the  Primitives.  But  making  all  allowances  for  the  period  and 
its  prejudices,  his  abuse  of  the  Gothic^  is  surely  intemperate  and 
unreasoned.  It  accords  ill  with  his  principle  of  taking  a  work 
per  se.  ^  Gothic '  is  with  him  simply  an  equivalent  term  for 
barbarous,  and  this  while  he  is  forced  to  concede  the  religious 
appositeness  of  the  style  and  its  actual  beauty  in  certain  of  the 
churches.^  His  notions  as  to  its  historical  meaning  and  develop- 
ment are  certainly  original. 


'  Not  the  French,  which  he  scarcely  knew.  ^p^  57  fj 

^  P.  61.     He  had  a  nicer  eye  for  discrimination  in  attitude  and  drawing, 

*P.  57.  sp.  71ff.  epp.  72_3. 


170  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

In  connection  with  the  religious  relations  of  art,  his  remarks 
on  these  ^ — drawn  from  his  acquaintance  either  with  the  Greek 
statues  of  deities  or  with  the  churchly  studies  of  the  Renaissance 
— seem  quite  justified  as  a  matter  of  history,  whatever  one  may 
consider  the  a  priori  connection.  He  does  equally  well  in  admit- 
ting the  virtual  Greek  origin  of  the  arts.^ 

For  painting  particularly,  he  is  open  to  the  same  rQproach 
which  has  been  applied  to  his  conception  of  literary  style :  ^  he 
confuses  manner  with  mannerism,  and  in  seeking  to  suppress  the 
latter,  he  goes  far  toward  suppressing  the  distinctiveness  and 
individuality  of  the  former/  If  we  concede,  as  we  may,  that 
ornament  is  not  true  beauty,  what  shall  we  do  with  the  statement 
that  only  great  simplicity  is  true  genius?^  May  genius  not  be 
rather  simplex  munditiis  f     Otherwise,  what  becomes  of  art  ?  ^ 

One  has  hardly  begun  to  sympathize  with  his  distrust  of  realism,^ 
when  disconcertment  comes  with  his  attack  on  vaghezza^  in 
apparent  opposition  to  his  recommendation  of  such  qualities  as 
charm,  sentiment,  mystery.  The  importance  which  he  attaches  to 
chiaroscuro^  is  interesting  as  derivatory  from  his  principle  of 
contrast.  In  every  branch  he  has  seized  upon  light  and  shadow 
as  a  fruitful  motive. 

There  is  much  relativity  and  thoughtfulness  in  his  notion  of  not 
taking  the  Greek  physique  as  the  ideal  for  to-day.^^  But  as  a 
whole,  he  has  little  feeling  for  sculpture,  evinces  the  amateur's 
smattering,  shows  small  delight  in  the  antique  masterpieces  and 
takes  Bernini  seriously."  His  conception  of  architecture,  as 
dependent  absolutely  upon  the  old  Vitruvian  dogmatic  orders,  as 
physical  or  mathematical  and  always  strictly  invariable,  reveals 


ip.  58.  *Pp.  59,72. 

^Cf.  on  genius  verstbs  art,  p.  81,  and  inf.,  p.  183. 

*P.  60.  Cf.  his  condemnation  of  ornament  in  architecture  (pJ  72).  This, 
however,  is  good,  as  is  also  his  recognition  of  the  prettiness  and  powerlessness 
of  Versailles. 

5  P.  72.  «Cf.  in/.,  p.  172,  ^  ^up.,  p.  30,— p.60. 

^  Which,  however,  he  may  conceive  of  as  nearer  sentimentality  (p.  61 ). 

»P.  61.  10  P.  67. 

^^  Though  he  dislikes  his  frappant  and  likes  its  absence  in  Kaphael.  Cf.  Orna- 
ment. 


The  Aesthetie  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  171 

him  in  his  most  classic  frame  of  mind/  Indeed,  what  with  his 
adherence  to  these  tasteless  proportions  and  his  denunciation  of 
the  Gothic,  he  shows  to  less  advantage  on  the  building  art  than  on 
any  other. 

In  choosing  Italian  music  and  Italian  operas,  it  may  be  claimed 
that  he  chose  the  best  of  which  his  time  was  capable.^  The  love 
of  that  opera  shows  at  any  rate  a  love  of  the  romantic  and  melodic, 
if  also  of  the  spectacular  and  the  facile — and  he  can  hardly  be 
blamed  for  not  preferring  a  Beethoven,  when  a  Beethoven  did  not 
yet  exist.  Still,  he  expresses  a  desire  for  the  higher  harmony  as 
against  superficial  elaborateness,  thus  again  opposing  the  greater 
simplicity  and  ornament.  The  strictly  moral  effect  which  he 
claims  for  music  must  be  questioned.  His  account  of  the  subject 
and  his  arguments  are  alike  somewhat  flimsy. 

For  landscape-gardening,^  he  seeks,  with  what  degree  of  legiti- 
macy it  need  not  here  be  determined,^  to  use  nature  artistically. 
At  least,  his  revolt  against  Le  Notre,  his  taste  for  English  gardens, 
his  protest  against  wearisome  and  excessive  regularity  deserve 
commendation.  Even  here  he  is  careful  to  hedge.  His  love  of 
nature  is  quite  another  thing.^ 

In  sum,  it  appears  that  on  broad  lines — for  evidently  neither 
here  nor  elsewhere  can  a  halt  be  made  to  approve  or  condemn  the 
host  of  his  more  detailed  observation  s^-his  expression  on  the  fine 
arts  is  chiefly  valuable  from  a  temporal  or  historical  standpoint. 
When  he  yields  to  the  opinion  of  the  period,  as  in  the  preference 
of  certain  schools  and  principles  of  painting  or  architecture,  he 
must  be  noted  :  still  more,  when  he  departs  therefrom,  when  his 
struggling  individuality  gropes  after  the  new  order,  the  future 
feeling  for  personality  and  protest.  Or  else,  he  is  interesting  when 
he  deals,  however  cavalierly  or  conventionally,  with  the  great 
questions  of  debate.  He  frequently  poses,  as  a  great  mind  must, 
thoughts^  that  demand  thought,  the  fruitful  problems  of  produc- 
tiveness, perfection,  vision  and  art's  recurring  cycle. 
'  Such  a  topic  is  suggested  as  soon  as  he  embarks  on  the  sea  of 


P.  69.  2pp75ff  sp,  78^ 

Cf.  sujo.,p.  164.  5 Pp.  31-2. 


172  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

Literature.  The  striking  passage  ^  where  genius  is  contrasted  with 
art,  and  the  latter  identified  with  "  manner ''  indicates,  even  though 
not  pushed  to  its  logical  conclusion,  an  intransigent  attitude  which 
must  surely  be  reckoned  with.  He  will  not  employ  the  usual 
means  of  conciliation,  which  makes  genius  equivalent  to  uncon- 
scious art.  It  is  still  farther  from  the  excessively  conscious, 
elaborated  art,  from  artificial,  acquired  simplicity. 

Simplicity,  indeed,  it  must  have,  but  the  greatest  spontaneous 
simplicity — ^a  kind  always  recommendable,  however  unattainable.^ 
And  with  this  may  be  linked  his  cry  of  "  imitez  la  nature,"  so  far 
as  that  has  not  come  to  be  a  meaningless  catchword,  so  far  as  it 
still  signifies  plain  unimaginative  truth  and  primary  objectivism 
and  distrust  of  colifichets. 

If  this  is  his  subtle  pleading,  and  if  thereby  he  means  to  vaunt 
this  absolute  objectivism,  classically  or  realistically  stated,  he  is 
vaunting  a  dead  letter.^  How  is  he  completely  to  discard  the 
personal  equation,  the  tempemmental  basis  ?  "  Nature  "  is  a  very 
broad  word ;  and  one  argument  for  impressionism  would  seem  to 
be  that  since  we  cannot  know  ^*  things  in  themselves,"  let  us  pre- 
sent them  faithfully  from  our  standpoint.  It  may  be  hoped  that 
in  this  way  we  approach  an  ultimate  "  natural."  At  any  rate  it 
is  natural  to  us. 

The  President,  in  fact,  for  all  his  positivism  and  empiricism,  is 
troubled  by  the  presence  of  the  human  "  machine."  Man  seems 
at  one  instant  all,  at  the  next  nothing,  never  an  invariable  object. 
He  will  express  or  smother  himself,  by  no  fixity  of  standards,  but 
according  as  he  finds  himself  in  a  moment  of  self-effacement  or 
of  boastfulness.  The  expression  will  not  depend  upon  the  will  of 
another.  Such  vibration  in  judgment  of  self  or  the  race  is  as  old 
as  either. 

If  I  have  read  too  much  into  the  Montesquivian  formulae  of 
simplicity  and  nature,  if,  as  would  be  most  probable  from  the 
moderation  of  his  soul,  he  is  not  absolute  against  either  subjectiv- 
ity or  art,  he  should  be  given  a  fresh  hearing.     Yet,  as  far  as 

ip.  81,  cf.  p.  166.  =^P.  43. 

^  As  his  own  doctrine  of  relativity  sufficiently  demonstrates. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  173 

genius  is  concerned,  he  has  certainly  made  the  opposition — though, 
as  before,  it  is  a  principle  which  he  will  hardly  make  thorough- 
going in  application  to  individuals.  He  may  be  convinced,  and 
rightly  convinced,  that  the  divine  fire  is  supreme.  But  is  it  alone 
and  self-sufficient,  and  does  it  disdain  the  aid  of  art?  Does  he 
himself  rank  Raphael  and  Virgil,  artists  both,  as  hopelessly  out 
of  the  running  with  Michelangelo  and  Homer?  Are  genius  and 
art  found  incompatible  in  Dante  or  in  Shakespeare  ?  The  most 
that  can  be  admitted  is  a  certain  decline,  when  art  assumes  too 
much  the  upper  hand.  In  dealing  with  the  numerous  personages 
in  these  pages,  artists  and  geniuses,  the  President  slips  easily  away 
from  his  distinction.  So  far,  however,  as  the  dictum  makes  for 
creative  power  and  against  artificiality,  it  must  evidently  be 
welcomed. 

One  must  stop  likewise  to  applaud  his  principle  of  suggestiveness, 
expressed  in  the  fine  maxim  that  a  truly  great  thought  makes  us 
see  many  others.^  No  abler  statement  of  the  true  purpose  of 
allusion,  by  a  past  master  in  the  art,  can  well  be  found.  It  is  a 
question  of  leaving  something  to  the  reader,  of  stimulating  him, 
of  "making  him  think." ^  And  the  just  balance  is  struck  when 
our  author  recommends  the  golden  mean  between  boring  and 
obscuring  a  reader,  with  "suppressions  heureuses.'' ^  The  sugges- 
tiveness desired  is  neither  that  of  the  je  ne  sais  quoi,  nor  that  of 
allusion,  topical  or  literary,  but  simply  the  kind  that  by  compact 
and  happy  statement  opens  up  vistas  of  associated  thought. 

By  this  and  by  many  other  such  references,  the  things  of  the 
mind  are  seen  to  be  the  permanent  issue  with  Montesquieu. 
Here,  in  connection  with  poetry  and  drama,  he  tries  to  do  justice 
to  imagination  and  sentiment.^  He  really  does  more  than  might 
be  expected.  But  his  praise  is  all  too  brief  and  it  may  safely  be 
inferred  that  these  qualities  had  no  abiding  place  in  his 
regard. 

His  argument  for  the  value  of  literature  is  interesting,  in  that 
be  attempts  to  discard  the  notion  of  an  immediate  utility  as  essen- 

ip.  81.  2p86^  3p^  157^ 

*  Pp.  82-3.     As  in  connection  with  art  above,  p.  37. 


174  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

tial,  throwing  emphasis  rather  on  the  general  cultural  import.^ 
The  shoemaker  may  occasionally  leave  his  last,  and  the  economist 
his  calculations.  One  may  be  glad  too  that  he  is  not  with  those 
who  rank  letters  as  a  decadent  development.  He  stands  for  a 
recognition  of  milieu  and  believes  that  the  best  literature  comes 
with  the  best  ages.^  He  shows  his  tolerance  and  the  true  cosmo- 
politan spirit  in  giving  us  to  understand  that  each  national  output 
and  each  genre  is  to  be  allowed  and  judged  by  its  own  standards.^ 

He  is  less  satisfactory  in  ascribing  the  appeal  of  the  best  authors 
to  the  fact  that  they  provide  a  nouveau  frisson,  that  they  stimulate 
and  satisfy  our  curiosity  or  surprise."^  It  is  easy  to  see  that 
curiosity  has  its  highest  meaning ;  yet  in  linking  this  quality  with 
suggestiveness '  and  in  calling  it  the  (chief)  "principle  of  pleas- 
ure ^'  in  ouvrages  d^esprit,^  is  he  not  making  a  little  too  much  of  a 
ressortj  strong  undoubtedly,  but  after  all  lying  in  a  reader's 
responsiveness  and  hence  thoroughly  subjective?  It  has  been  in 
writing  u]) — or  down — to  a  reader's  curiosity  that  some  very  poor 
stuff'  lias  been  composed.  That  way  lies  ultimately  sensation- 
mongering  and  melodrama. 

The  "  superstition  of  the  subject ''  ^  is  an  open  question  and 
one  on  which  the  President  is  entitled  to  his  views. 

In  his  criticism  and  complaining  of  the  influence  of  the  salon , 
conversation  and  esprit,  he  unquestionably  takes  high  ground  and 
is  apparently  sincere.^  But  it  is  clear  from  the  space  which  he 
devotes  to  such  influences  in  writing,  that  he  considers  them  inevi- 
table for  his  age  and  is  prepared  to  capitulate.  He  does  not  so 
fully,  indeed,  denounce  the  empire  of  women  and  of  conversation, 
except  as  causes,  the  account  of  these  being  rather  descriptive  and 
explanatory.  He  divided  at  the  time  what  Taine  perceived  in 
later  perspective  and  came  with  sagacity  to  much  the  same  conclu- 
sions ;  to  wit,  that  any  litterateur,  and  more  especially  any  writer 
in  the  semi-literary  genres,  such  as  science  or  philosophy,  was 
bound  to  consider  his  audience;  that  this  audience,  composed 
generally  of  more  or  less  ignorant  though  curious  worldlings,  and 


P.  83,  cf.  in/.,  p.  202.  ^V.  U.        ^pp,  85-6.  *P.  86. 

P.  41.  « P.  41.        '  Pp.  85  and  87.  » P.  87  fiE. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  175 

particularly  of  women,  demanded  to  have  truth  brought  to  their 
level ;  that  these  demands,  consisting  specifically  in  a  call  for  the 
every-day  language  of  conversation,  general  simple  terms  depend- 
ent on  current  experience  and  familiar  examples,  as  opposed  to  a 
technical  and  abstract  vocabulary,  were  binding  upon  any  author 
who  wished  to  be  understood,  to  become  known  and  popular; 
that,  in  brief,  the  social  status  and  its  expression  controlled  expres- 
sion in  literature/ 

The  perception  of  the  necessity  is  only  somewhat  dimmer  in 
Montesquieu's  theory.  He  is  more  disposed  to  regret  the  facts. 
But  his  books  are  probably  among  those  which  Taine  had  in  mind, 
as  best  exemplifying  the  method  and  its  results. 

Our  author,  as  became  the  haunter  of  salons  that  he  was,  does 
not  stop  there  with  the  women.  He  is  perpetually  bringing  them 
in,  as  subjects  for  artistic  reference,  for  example  in  connection  with 
order,^  or  mystery.^  Duparcq''  makes  a  deft  comparison  here 
between  the  feminine  je  ne  sais  quoi  and  pudeur,  as  appraised  by 
the  President.  His  statement  that  women  form  taste,  though  it 
may  not  on  the  whole  be  gainsaid,  has,  it  is  noted,^  hardly  proved 
true  in  his  own  case. 

The  worldly  influence  is  chiefly  to  be  condemned,  it  appears, 
because  of  its  alarming  productiveness  in  the  matter  of  badinage 
and  esprit.  His  objection  here  reads  very  much  like  that  of 
Buffbn:« 

"Mettre  de  1' esprit  partout,  c'est  la  manie  de  nos  jeunes  auteurs  :  ils  ne 
voient  pas  que  cet  esprit,  a  moins  qu'il  ne  soit  tire  du  fond  du  sujet,  ne  pent 
qu'en  gater  la  representation;  que  semer  mal  a  propos  des  fleursj  c'est  planter 
des  Opines.  .  .  .  S'ils  eussent  form^  leur  gout  sur  de  bons  modeles,  ils  rejetteraient 
cet  esprit  etranger  a  la  chose."  ^ 

But  with  esprit,^  Montesquieu  is  tfuly  in  much  the  same  predic- 

^  Taine,  Anc.  Reg.,  pp.  335-6 — '^Avec  cette  mdthode,  on  peut  tout  expliquer, 
tout  faire  comprendre,  m^me  a  des  femmes,  m#me  a  des  ferames  du  monde." 

2  P.  39.  3  P.  42.  ^  Notes  sur  Mont,,  etc.,  ^.  Q^. 
5  P.  45.               ^De  d'art  d'Ecrire,  quoted  by  Nadault  de  Buffon,  i,  293. 
'  Cf.  the  fleurs  of  Livy  and  Quintus  Curtius,  sup.,  p.  137. 
^Containing  also  the  '^ superstition  of  subject." 

3  P.  89  fif. 


176  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

ament  as  with  its  causes,  his  helpless  protests  ringing  all  the  louder 
as  he  succumbs.  In  vain  he  solemnly  declaims  against  the 
quality/  would  prefer  true  intellect  or  true  humor,  denies  its 
connection  with  genius,  would  repudiate  it  for  himself.  He  is 
forced  to  admit  its  modern  predominance  and  its  modern  hold  on 
literature.  He  is  himself  dependent  upon  its  exercise,  knows  this 
and  naively  acknowledges  it.^ 

It  is  largely  because  he  has  esprit  and  wishes  to  show  it  that  he 
passes  in  part  so  contemptuous  a  verdict  upon  books  and  authors,* 
poets  and  critics.  Many  of  these  portraits  are  rather  caricatures, 
and  do  not  embody  inner  conviction.  Yet,  in  his  remarks  against 
writing  generally  there  is  something  of  a  more  serious  questioning, 
the  old  wearied  cry,  the  cui  bono  of  Ecclesiastes.  Writing  seems 
only  commendable  where  there  is  genius ;  otherwise  books  are 
ordinary  or  bad  ;  the  distinction  between  works  of  genius  and 
those  of  mere  memory  or  erudition  is  made  for  literature  in  general, 
for  science*  and  for  history.^  In  which  connection,  one  is  tempted 
heartily  to  indorse  the  points  he  makes  against  the  tribe  of  com- 
pilers and  commentators.^ 

The  faults  and  failings,  the  merits  too,  the  troubles  and  trials  of 
authors  are  not  ill  set  forth ;  ^  though  still  with  exaggerations  for 
effect.  Personally,  he  seems  to  think  little  of  his  own  perform- 
ances, showing  however  an  ombre  of  literary  vanity,  if  much  less 
of  literary  jealousy  than  is  usual. ^ 

The  best  writers  and  the  best  books  ^  are  not  included  in  his 
condemnation.  No  boutade,  however  sweeping,  can  vitiate  his 
love  of  humanities,  his  delight  in  study,  which  is  sincere,  inspiring, 
well-reasoned. — 

"Jamais  les  lettres  .  .  .  jamais  le  travail,  I'^tude  et  les  livres  n'ont  arrach^  £l 
un  ecrivain  des  accents  plus  sincSres,  un  eloge  pins  convaincu  et  pins  senti."  ^® 


*  In  others. 

'^He  has  even  "une  sorte  de  point  d'honneur  sur  I'article  de  1' esprit." — Sorel, 
p.  11. 
3P.  93fiE.  *P.  102.  5P115, 

«P.  94.  'P.  97. 

8  P.  98,  cf.  VII,  207.     (Laboulaye). 

^Though  there  is  always  debate  as  to  the  inclusiveness  of  the  "best." 
^°  Zevort,  Mont,  p.  38 — d  propoa  of  the  Discours  sur  les  Motifs. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  177 

His  diatribes  against  pedantry  ^  and  stupid  authority,  against  the 
empire  of  old  and  devitalized  facts,  are  but  another  sign  of  his 
struggling  individualism.  The  true  thirst  for  learning  is  quite 
another  thing.^ 

His  attitude  towards  the  Academy^  is  quite  normal,  easily 
explained  by  his  actual  connection  with  that  body.  As  a  young 
tirailleur y  he  abused  the  institution  in  the  Lettres  persanes:  and 
"  Facad^mie  se  vengea  en  le  faisant  Acad^micien."  *  He  seems 
rather  to  have  taken  to  heart  the  advice  of  Malet,^  who  received 
him  and  thus  called  him  to  task : 

''Ainsi,  pour  6tre  Acaddmicien,  ne  croyez  pas,  Monsieur,  n' avoir  d' autre 
fonction  que  de  juger  ce  que  les  autres  font ;  et  ne  craignez  point  d'etre  obligd 
de  louer  ce  que  ne  sera  pas  digne  de  I'^tre."  * 

Doubtless  he  was  depayse'^  in  that  immortal  company  of  1728.^ 
Another  Academy,  that  of  Bordeaux,  which  he  liked  a  great  deal 
better,  happens  to  be  just  the  institution  ridiculed  in  the  Acade- 
mistes  of  St.-Evremond.^ 

Montesquieu's  estimates  of  philosophy  and  of  theology  are 
scornful  and  superficial.^^  It  seems  strange  that  he  makes  so  little 
of  oratory  or  political  eloquence, ^^  especially,  as  Dareste  notices, 
that  he  allowed  this  so  small  a  place  in  picturing  the  grandeur  of 
Kome.^^  His  admiration  for  Cicero  would  seem  to  tend  in  the 
other  direction.  But  his  poor  opinion  of  the  ge7ire  is  probably 
due  to  the  same  cause  which  led  him  to  condemn  the  special  type 
of  the  oraison  funebre.  It  is  still  ^^  la  meme  pens^e  qui  repoussait 
les  ornements  et  tous  les  mensonges  de  la  poesie."  ^^ 

As  to  this  last,  it  is  sufficiently  obvious  that  the  President  had 
no  taste  for  poetry,^*  that  is,  for  anything  voicing  the  pure  lyric 
afflatus.     His  attitude  may  be  partially  condoned,  in  view  of  the 

iPp.  lOOff.  2p99,  3p,  101. 

*  Petit  de  Julie ville,  vi,  173. 

^  Discours  de  reception  d  Mont. ,  p.  206, 

*An  evident  retort  to  the  ''fureur  panegyriqae"  of  M's  accusation. 

'Z^vort,  Mont.,  p.  126. 

8 P.  111.  ^Bemadau,  Ajmales,  p.  94.  ^^Pp.  103-4. 

^^  P.  105.  .^^Xj'Sist.  ram.  dans  Mont.,  p.  14. 

i=*  Meyer,  Com.  L.  P.,  p,  138.  '  J*  P.  106  ff. 

/ 


178  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

miserable  quality  of  the  poetic  output  of  his  time.^  He  has,  how- 
ever, been  abundantly  dealt  with  by  the  critics  for  this  deficiency  ;  ^ 
and,  in  truth,  if  we  allow  his  ovrn  very  wide  definition  of  the 
term,  it  will  be  seen  that  there  are  several  kinds  which  he  really 
esteems. 

There  are  first  the  thinkers,  the  "  four  great "  ones,  who  appar- 
ently were — especially  Montaigne  and  Shaftesbury — poets  of  a 
rare  order.  They  were  none  the  less  so  that,  like  earlier  Walt 
Whitmans,  they  shunned  the  shackles  of  rhyme,  rhythm,  harmony 
and  the  like.  We  have  only  to  define  poetry  as  prose  to  reach  so 
inevitable  a  conclusion. 

Yet  something  must  be' allowed  for  this  view  too.  The  dictum 
is,  thinks  Faguet,^  an — 

"Opinion  oil  il  y  a  du  vrai,  et  beaucoup  d'inattendu.*  II  faut  entendre  s^,ns 
doute  que  les  plus  grands  pontes,  ^  ses  yeux,  sont  les  philosophes,  les  crdateurs  et 
4vocateurs  d'id^es.  ...  On  sent  15,^  I'homme  de  raison  froide  qui  n'aura  de 
passion  que  pour  les  iddes."  ^  ^^o<-'''  '  i^^^u 

Similarly  Montesquieu's  own  reservation  of  the  dramatists  as 
the  "masters  of  passions''  is  deemed  by  this  (critic  a  recognition 
of  the  French  dramatists  rather  as  moralists  and  orators. 

For  the  two  concessions  to  poetry  made  thus  far,  of  the  four 
great  thinkers  and  of  the  dramatists,  it  might  be  objected  that 
neither  class  is  ordinarily  esteemed  as  poetic  of  necessity  or  pri- 
marily ;  and  again  that  our  author,  far  from  valuing  the  specific 
provinces  mentioned,  has  shown  an  utter  abhorrence  of  philoso- 
phers, of  moralists  and  of  orators.  M.  Faguet  would  probably 
explain,  as  indeed  his  context  implies,  that  philosophy  and  moral- 
ity are  used  in  the  broadest  sense ;  that  Montesquieu  seems  to  him, 
as  indeed  he  would  seem  to  anybody,  to  value  chiefly  thinkers  and 
dealers  with  ideas,  which  need  not  be  technically  philosophical  or 

*This  is  Sorel's  excuse,  Mont.,  p.  21.  But  cf.  H^mon,  Cours  de  litt.,  i,  9. — 
"  Mais  ses  jugeraents  sont  trop  particuliers  au  temps  et  au  gout  du  temps." 

2 1,  41  (Laboulaye)  ;  Faguet,  XVIII^  si^cle,  p.  141  ;  cf.  in/,,  p,  203. 

'  Loc,  cit, 

*  Which  suggests  that  Montesquieu  was  merely  committing  an  epigram.  It  is 
not  always  easy  to  distinguish.     Cf.  inf,,  p.  178. 

^  That  is,  in  M's  contempt  for  ''lyric  extravagance." 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  VL^^ 

moral;  and  that  there  is  something  to  be  said  for  thought  in 
poetry. 

Allowing  then  that  Montesquieu  was  enormously  fond  of 
poetry,  as  exemplified  in  Montaigne  or  Cr^billon,  one  might 
further  ask,  with  some  hesitation,  if  he  cared  for  any  other  kind. 
Whereupon,  more  exceptions  may  emerge.  He  had,  it  is  readily 
granted,  some  sense  of  the  beauty  of  classical  lines ;  and  he  had, 
what  is  better,  a  twilight  feeling  for  poetic  antiquity.^  With  this 
last  is  connected  a  romantic  feeling  for  the  riante  ^  Fable.'  ^ 

With  the  enumeration  of  these  four  or  five  exceptions,  some  of 
which  are  more  apparent  than  real,  I  may  leave  substantially 
untouched  the  initial  statement  that  the  President  was,  on  the 
whole,  unpoetic  in  temperament  and  appreciative  power.  What  he 
has  to  say  then  in  criticism  of  the  genre  will  hardly  be  of  much 
value.  His  notions  concerning  "  declamation  ''  and  the  necessary 
dactyls  of  English  verse  ^  are  not  very  informing.  One  may 
however,  abundantly  approve  his  desire  to  disassociate  poetry  from 
dogma. 

He  had  of  course  nothing  like  the  modern  familiarity  with 
fiction,  knowing  only  the  roman  of  long  adventures  and  prodigies, 
together  with  the  few  specimens  of  the  psychological,  or  the  novel 
of  manners,  which  had  then  appeared.  There  is  little  to  take 
issue  with  in  his  philippics  against  the  first  class,*  or  in  his  appre- 
ciation of  Scarron  and  Mme.  de  La  Fayette.^  For  the  latter  kind, 
especially  for  Manon,  the  passionate  quality  impresses  him 
remarkably — more  than  any  study  of  character.  He  has  nothing 
to  say  concerning  the  semi-philosophic  oriental  tale  ^ — which  indeed 
he  is  held  to  have  inaugurated.^ 

His  warmth  of  feeling  for  the  drama  ^  must  give  us  pause.  It 
seems  a  zeal  quite  laudable,  if  not  thoroughly  according  to  know- 
ledge. Hennequin  would"  have  him  "p^n^tre  de  Fetude  des 
tragiques   grecs."  ^     Yet    he   recognizes   only  terror   in  tragedy. 

iSorel,  p.  21.    Cf.  sup.,  p,  125. 

2  P.  113,  3  P.  109.  *P.  111.  sp,  139. 

*  As  typified  by  Voltaire  or  by  Basselas.  * 

'Cf.  ir»/.,  pp.  187,  193.  8 Pp.  113-5. 

^ Etude  8ur  Mont,  p.  27 — a  dubious  proposition. 


180  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

How  could  he  show  a  complete  appreciation  of  dramatic  excellence, 
fifter  showing  so  little  taste  for  the  poetic  and  romantic  ?     In  fact, 
-be  himself  admits  his  ignorance  on  matters  of  the  theatre. 
r    This  is  not  altogether  to  deny  his  taste  for  the  drama,  whether 

•  he   felt   it   as   so   closely   linked    with    life,    action,    passion,    or 
-^whether  he  simply  leaned  to  a  theoretical  admission  of  the  genre. 

It  may  be  observed  that  his  conception  is  highly  moral  and 
classical  above  all.  Corneille  and  Racine  are  more  admired  than 
Moli^re  and  Shakespeare  ;  ^  and  Cr^billon  is  adored.^ 

As  for  history,^  there  is  found  not  only  the  comprehensive  or 
panoramic  conception,  which  might  be  expected  from  the  author 
of  the  RomainSy  but  an  understanding  of  the  dramatic  or  "literary  " 
kind,  of  the  philosophic  kind,  and,  most  significant,  of  that  history 
of  the  people  which  has  been  esteemed  a  much  later  growth.  His 
sneers  at  memoirs  ^  seem  excessive  to-day,  with  our  modern  reli- 
ance upon  that  form  of  composition. 

His  judgments  on  malevolent  satire  ^  merit  as  much  praise  as 

those  on  destructive  criticism.     Here,^  nearly  every  statement  is 

I  good — whether  as  to  the  inferiority  of  criticism  to  creation,  the 

*  art '  of  it,  its  dependence  on  the  decision  of  the  people,  its  due 
fairness  to  the  author,  its  guiding  task.  The  only  reserve  that 
could  be  taken  is  that  his  warning  against  destructiveness  springs 
directly  from  a  consideration  of  those  writers  who  would  destroy 
him.  His  remarks  are  none  the  less  general  in  application.  A 
discussion  of  his  own  place  as  a  critic  may  best  find  place  at  the 
end  of  the  treatment.'^ 

His  preference  for  the  ancients,^  his  acceptance  of  imitation,  his 
belief  in  the  decadence  of  the  moderns,  his  insight  into  the  fact 
that  these  latter  have  lost  in  sentiment  as  much  as  they  have 
gained  in  philosophy  and  reasoning^ — these  points  may  pass 
without  further  comment.  His  evolution  of  the  separate  litera- 
tures calls  for  closer  examination. 

With  the  Greeks,^^  he  again  admires  decidedly  more  than  he 


» p.  139  ff. 

2  Pp.  145. 

3  P.  115  ff. 

*P.  117. 

5  P.  118. 

«P.  119  ff. 

^Cf.  inf.,  p.  201. 

«P.  124  ff. 

«P,  128. 

i»P.  133, 

The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  181 

knows.  His  praising  of  Homer  and  the  dramatists  has  not 
the  surest  touch.  Aristotle  and  Plato  are  unduly  depreciated. 
Plutarch  is  liked,  one  would  think,  for  his  positive  biographical 
value. 

His  taste  for  individual  Latins  ^  is  illuminative  in  a  way  that 
a  general  adoration  of  antiquity  could  never  be.  Virgil  appeals 
to  his  classically  artistic  sense ;  Ovid  and  Tibullus  to  his  gallantry ; 
Cicero  to  his  sense  of  the  grandiose  and  tMdtral;  ^  Florus — "  son 
maitre  de  rhetorique  et  ses  delices/'  ^ — to  his  preciosity  and  deft- 
ness in  diction ;  Marcus  Aurelius  and  the  stoic  feeling  to  his 
moral  fibre;  Livy  and  Quintus  Curtius  are  condemned  from 
his  theoretical  opposition  to  ornament. 

Montesquieu's  utterances  on  French  literature  are  subject  to 
similar  limitations,  enforced  by  his  period  or  his  personal  bias. 
Delacroix  is  undoubtedly  too  severe  in  wishing  to  eliminate  alto- 
gether these  judgments,  yet  with  modification  his  opinion  will  hold — 
at  least  for  the  Pensees  diverses  : 

''Nous  aurions  desire  qu'on  eut  retranche  de  ses  Pensees  diverses  les  jugements 
sur  les  auteurs  Fran9ais,  parce  queces  jugements  ne  seront  jamais  confirm^s,  ni  par 
r opinion  publique  ni  par  le  gout.  Montesquieu  a  beaucoup  trop  exalte  Cr^billon, 
et  semble  avoir  voulu  rend  re  a  Voltaire  injustice  pour  injustice."  * 

There  is  not  so  much  to  say  when  the  President  indicates  a 
preference  for  the  early  part  of  the  Age  of  Louis  XIV,  as  per- 
haps marking  the  zenith  of  letters.''  It  is  natural  that  he  should 
have  chosen  this  reign  and  just  that  part  of  this  reign,  for  the 
national  taste,  from  the  Regency  on,  revolted  against  the  latter 
part.  But  it  is  more  difficult  to  make  like  allowance,  when  we 
find  no  word  celebrating  the  splendor,  power,  poetry  and  scholar- 
ship of  the  French  Renaissance.^  Ronsard  is  not  an  actuality, 
which  would  seem  to  settle  the  question. 

iPp.  135  ff. 

2  Janet  seems  entirely  justified  in  calling  M's  estimate  of  Cicero  unreservedly 
panegyrical.  * '  Par  exemple  il  le  loue  en  philosophic  non  seulement  au-dela  de 
la  v^rit^,  mais  contre  toute  v^rite."  M.  maintains  the  Roman's  originality  in 
philosophy  and  claims  that  he  overthrew  the  Greeks  ;  whereas  he  only  translated 
these.  The  praise  of  Cicero's  character  is  also  quite  exaggerated.  {Journal  des 
Savants,  1893,  p.  149. ) 

^Sorel,  p.  52.  ^MonL  consid.,  p.  37.  ^Pp.  28,  84.  ^P.  138. 


182  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

The  praise  of  Montaigne  shows  the  preference  for  "  ceux  qui 
pensent "  against  "  ceux  qui  amusent."  ^  Boileau's  art  is  ad- 
mired— but  his  spirit  and  his  character  condemned.^  The  point  of 
character,  indeed,  is  what  Montesquieu  chiefly  considers  in  regard 
to  his  contemporaries,  admiring  on  this  ground  Fontenelle,  Rollin, 
St.  Pierre.^  The  last  is  reproved,  wherein  he  would  work  against 
our  author's  aristocratic  views. 

It  is  again  the  intellectual  which  he  reveres  in  Descartes  and  in 
Malebranche.^  Voltaire,  if  he  is  not  quite  considered  a  "  polisson 
de  lettres,''  ^  is  judged  with  acumen  as  well  as  with  personal 
animus.^     And  Buffon  is  appreciated  somewhat  grudgingly.^ 

The  remark  on  the  "rudesse"  of  English  poetry^  is  also 
revelatory.  It  counts  on  the  credit  side  that  he  is  disposed  to 
allow  to  the  English  authors  generally  imagination  and  originality. 
He  is  caught  in  doubt  as  to  Shakespeare,  being  better  able  to 
estimate  and  appreciate  Pope  or  Addison.^ 

Just  here,  by  way  of  transition  to  style,  we  may  note  Fr^ron's^® 
comment  on  the  "  ecrits  satiriques  sanglants  : " 

"En  defendant  les  grfices  centre  1' Anergic,  I'auteur  soutient  sa  propre  cause. 
Mais  en  aspirant  aux  gr^es  franpaises,  il  n'a  pas  renonc^  a  1' Anergic  anglaise."  " 

Force,  in  fact,  would  hardly  be  a  French  recommendation,  and 
accordingly,  when  it  comes  to  style,  this  quality  is  not  expressly 
enjoined. ^^  Perhaps,  again,  it  is  because  the  French  look  upon 
clearness  and  elegance  as  somewhat  obviously  theirs,  that  no  great 
stress  is  laid  on  these  points  either.  But  concision  is  still  happily 
insisted  upon ;  and  the  suppressions  heureuses  continue  the  idea 
of  the  suggestive  and  inspiring  thought.^^ 

His  idea  of  a  style  at  dissonance  with  the  subject  is,^*  it  has  been 
remarked,  quite  in  accordance  with  the  tone  of  good  society — that 
of  saying  serious  things  lightly  and  vice  versa.     But  it  is  quite 

»P.  138.  2P140.  3  pp   143^143, 

*  Pp.  141-2.     And  in  Locke  (p.  152). 

^Sorel,  p.  137.  «P.  144.  "^P.  145.  sp.  151. 

»P.  151.  ^^  Remarqiies  mr  VE.  L.,  p.  208. 

^^  This  is  d  propos  of  M's  claim,  "  moi  je  suis  peintre." 

i=*P.  156.  13  p^  157^  i*P.  154. 


The  Aesthetic  Doetrine  of  Montesquieu.  183 

opposed  to  the  "  tone  of  discourse/'  the  maintaining  of  a  certain 
standard  of  exprssion  in  harmony  with  the  subject.  However,  he 
desires  to  discount  rhetorical  traditions. 

His  best  point,  in  connection  with  rhetoric,  is  where,  after 
renouncing  all  its  works,  he  allows  that  declamation  is  an 
usual  early  stage  in  stylistic  development.^  He  thus  suggests, 
contrary  to  his  assumed  formula,  that  the  progress  may  be  from 
simplicity,  through  ornament,  back  to  a  certain  simplicity  again. 
No  issue  can  be  taken  with  his  protests  against  labored  form, 
against  ornateness  and  bombast.  Only,  he  is  apt  to  consider  any 
style — say,  a  rich,  controlled,  or  thought-out  expression — as  com- 
ing under  one  of  these  heads.  He  seized,  at  any  rate,  the  impor- 
tant principle  that  sublimity  falls  easily  into  bathos.^ 


P.  156.  ^F.AS. 


184  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 


CHAPTER  XVII. 
APPLICATION  OF   DOCTRINE— CONCLUSIONS. 

It  may  be  interesting  to  round  off  the  present  study  by  an 
investigation  of  how  far  the  foregoing  principles  obtained  in 
Montesquieu's  own  method  and  style.  Regard  will  be  had  of 
course  to  the  evident  fact  that,  within  the  limits  of  this  discus- 
sion, it  will  be  impossible  to  give  an  exhaustive  or  thorough 
review  of  his  writings — qualities  which  have  been  aimed  at  in 
the  presentation  of  his  doctrine.  Nor  can  the  linking  be  made 
between  any  but  the  most  important  of  his  principles  and  their 
application. 

A  compendious  statement  of  his  whole  literary  doctrine,  with 
an  attempt  to  find  the  key  of  his  system,  so  far  as  that  can  be 
logically  coordinated,  may  well  precede. 

I  should  find  this  key,  or  leading  principle,  in  his  opposition 
of  thought  and  amusement.  The  majority  of  his  views  seem 
derivatory  from  this  contrast.  Those  that  are  not  come  from  a 
second  subsidiary  opposition,  allied  or  confused  with  the  first, 
between  restrained  classic  art  and  original  expression. 

Let  us  see  if  such  systematizing  will  hold. 

That  he  makes  thought  the  main  issue  appears  from  his  desire 
not  to  "  faire  lire,  mais  de  faire  penser,'*  from  his  exaltation  of 
Reason  as  the  divinest  faculty,  from  his  usual  admiration  of  those 
writers  who  were  the  greatest  thinkers.  Works  of  thought  are 
ouvi^ages  d^  esprit. 

That  he  makes  of  amusement  a  main  issue  appears  from  his 
statement  that  we  ordinarily  read  for  pleasure  alone,  from  his 
allowance  of  esprit  and  the  salon  style,  of  gallantry  and  salacious- 
ness.     Works  of  pleasure  are  belles-lettres. 

\     How  often  does  he  conciliate  the  two  motives  ?    The  lower  will 

/  be  subordinated  to  the  higher,  pleasure  to  thought.     This  is  seen  . 

in  his  suggestion  of  researches  for  savants^  "  et  un  trait  de  galan- 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  185 

terie''  for  the  rest;^  and  more  brilliantly  in  his  Invocation  to  the 
Muses  to  lead  to  wisdom  and  truth  through  pleasure.  If  he  allows 
the  means  to  obscure  the  end,  both  in  detailed  development  and  in 
execution,  that  will  be  perfectly  human. 

From  his  devotion  to  the  supreme  idea  comes  his  view  of 
suggestiveness  in  thought,  akin  to  an  appeasing  of  the  higher 
curiosity,  to  the  use  of  compressed  diction ;  thence  also  proceed 
his  causal  conception  of  history,  his  love  of  knowledge  and 
study,  his  care  for  the  spirit  rather  than  the  form  of  laws.  Here 
primarily  come  into  play  his  principles  of  order  and  suite. 

His  hesitancy  as  to  pleasure,  his  more  or  less  reluctant  yielding 
to  its  calls,  become  manifest  not  only  in  frequent  discussions  of 
women,  wit  and  gallantry,  but  in  his  opposition  of  truth  and  the 
bon  mot,  his  view  of  the  limits  of  satire  and  epigram.  The 
qualities  of  variety,  uniformity,  curiosity  and  surprise,  mystery 
and  naivete,  are  largely  chosen  because  of  their  pleasurable  appeal. 

The  subsidiary  contrast,  that  between  genius  and  "manner," 
or  individualism  and  classicism,  will  likewise  include  much.  His 
standpoint  here  similarly  fluctuates,  according  as  to  whether  or  not 
he  esteems  a  point  of  style  so  powerfully  and  reasonably  classic  to 
be  indisputably  good  form.  Otherwise  genius  will  prevail,  and 
art  is  only  artificiality  and  emptiness. 

Accordingly,  he  believes  in  a  delicate  literary  treatment  of  the 
sciences,  in  a  measured  use  of  true  antithesis,  in  using  while 
imitating  nature.  But  loud  is  his  denunciation  of  rhetoric  and 
figures,  of  hampering  pedants,  and  of  senseless,  tasteless  critics. 
Genius  is  its  own  arbiter.  A  work  not  of  genius  is  worthless. 
And  simple  genius — to  complete  the  cycle — is  thought. 

Things  of  a  pure  abstract  beauty  hardly  concern  him.  Contrast 
and  charm  are  the  only  qualities  falling  strictly  here.  Imagina- 
tion and  sentiment  are  briefly  dismissed,  though  he  will  not  have 
the  latter  ridiculed.  Literature  may  be  addressed  to  the  soul; 
but  of  his  division  he  has  chosen  that  type  "  dont  le  sujet  consiste 
dans  le  raisonnement." 

^  Which  was  Bayle's  excuse. 


186  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

Briefly  surveying  his  works,  it  will  readily  be  seen  that  the 
principle  of  amusement  obtained  in  his  eariier  years.^  Reserving 
for  a  moment  the  Lettres  persaneSy  let  us  consider  his  contributions 
to  the  art  of  fiction. 

None  of  these  show  much  narrative  ability  ;  but  they  do  show, 
each  and  all,  a  compromise  with  the  disposition  to  the  ornate,  the 
elaborate,  the  artificial,  which  theoretically  he  so  heartily  rejects. 
The  Temple  de  Guide  and  the  Voyage  ct  Faphos  were  written  to 
please  a  princess ;  and  throughout  they  evince  the  flattest  con- 
cessions to  the  salon  taste — which  was  also  that  of  the  hothouse. 

The  Temple  de  Gnide  with  its  pretty  conceits,  its  faded  figures 
and  images,  its  false  nature  and  its  art  suspect,  is  evidently 
designed  to  satisfy  the  "  d^licatesse  de  goAt "  which  he  found  at 
court.  It  has  no  note  of  real  feeling,  no  vitality,  no  appeal  save 
that  of  the  cuHosa  felieitas  and  of  voluptuous  suggestion.  Its 
descriptions  of  nature  are  tame  and  trite  to  a  degree ;  neither  here 
nor  elsewhere  has  Montesquieu  shown  vividness  or  pictorial  power 
in  representing  the  outdoor  world.  Its  plot  is  rambling,  reveal- 
ing already  its  author's  lack  of  constructive  ability.  This  is  best 
excused  by  considering  this  production  with  the  Voyage  d  Paphos 
as  connected  and  incomplete  sketches. 

Such  are  the  evident  weaknesses  of  the  method.  Perhaps 
there  is  compensating  gain.  For  certainly,  insipid,  cold  and 
tasteless  as  is  most  of  the  Temple,  it  is  yet  spirituel  and  pleasant 
in  places.  There  is  some  picturesque  force  and  imagination  in 
the  account  of  the  cavern  of  Jealousy,  in  the  still-life  view  of  the 
Sybarites.  There  is  some  daintily  malin  charm  in  the  tableaux 
of  the  Gods,  in  the  closing  scene  with  Th^mire — the  charm  of  a 
Boucher  allegory.  Better  than  either  are  the  fair  pages  of  fine 
prose,  modeled  and  moulded  into  a  rigid  and  polished  beauty,  as 
of  beau  mxirbre — the  still  cold  beauty  of  the  perfect  classic  phrase. 


*  It  will  be  impossible,  from  this  point  on,  to  give  the  host  of  references,  authori- 
ties, studies,  which  contribute  to  the  conclusions  about  to  follow.  I  must  ask  the 
reader  to  accept  results  in  lieu  of  processes,  assuring  him  that  the  former  have 
come  not  without  much  brooding  over  the  pages  of  Laboulaye,  as  well  as  from 
the  perusal  of  some  three  hundred  essays  and  monographs  on  the  President. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  187 

Then,  too,  no  one  can  deny  the  presence  of  that  harmony  which 
he  claimed  for  himself.^ 

Cephise  et  r Amour  is  a  pretty  and  provoquant  jeu  d' esprit.  Not 
so  much  can  be  said  for  the  Voyage  d  Paphos,  which  is  wearisome, 
silly  and  the  worst  of  these  productions.  It  is  the  apex  of 
passionless  gallantry,  tribe  ornament  and  stale  mythology.  In 
this  very  Voyage  is  found  the  rebuke  of  "  ces  froides  exag^rations 
qui  ....  d^shonorent  le  fade  passion^  qui  les  met  sans  cesse  en 
usage.''  ^  And  the  remark  seems  eminently  applicable  to  his  own 
production.  He  has  also  rebuked  the  throwing  of  flowers ;  but 
in  these  tales  he  throws  them  with  both  hands;  and  they  are 
palpably  artificial  flowers.^ 

The  principle  of  a  lower  pleasure,  then,  seems  inadequate  for 
literary  purposes.  It  is  interesting  in  this  same  genre,  to  compare 
with  these  stories  the  Arsace  et  Ismenie  of  his  later  years.*  This 
tale  is  fully  as  poorly  constructed,  has  still  the  clinquant  and  the 
appeal  to  the  passions.  But  thought  has  now  been  added  to 
amusement.  There  is  both  brilliancy  and  profundity  in  reflection, 
a  restrained  richness  in  style,  a  simpler  and  more  interesting 
manner  of  relation.  It  is  more  nearly  a  philosophic  apologue. 
The  high  light  of  humanity  and  idealism  appearing  at  the  end  of 
his  life  shines  brightly  here,  and — chose  etrange! — thereby  is  it 
even  given  to  him  to  display  in  his  last  story  more  of  sentiment 
than  elsewhere,  more  movement  and  a  purer  passion. 

One  point  must  be  touched  on,  in  connection  with  Montesquieu's 
avowed  preference  of  gallantry  to  grossness.^  The  first  is  a  prime 
motive  in  all  of  these  tales — certainly  there  is  nothing  Rabelaisian 
about  the  Temple  de  Gnide.  Yet,  in  the  sottisier  at  Bordeaux,  if 
we  may  believe  Yian,^  in  the  two  Lettres  persanes  '^  of  the  Etren- 
nes  de  la  St.-Jean,  there  are  details  quite  at  dissonance  with  his 
nicer  theory.     When  it  comes  to  gallantry,  there  is  a  coldness  in 

1  P.  158.  ^YU,  464,  cf.  mp,,  p.  108.  »P.  137, 

*The  Histoire  Veritable  is  too  poor  and  awkward  a  story  to  require  serious 
criticism.  It  is  chiefly  interesting  as  anticipating  the  L.  P.  for  harem  descrip- 
tions, and  in  some  technical  points  of  style. 

«P.  91.  «^is<.,  pp.  181-2. 

"^  Which,  if  any,  are  the  contributions  to  this  collection  that  I  would  assign  to 
his  pen. 


188  The  Aesthetie  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

his  most  passionate  scenes  that  is  quite  repulsive.  His  Galateas 
are  all  statuesque  and  his  ardors  rhetorical  and  his  transports 
unconvincing.  The  fade  language  of  compliment  and  the  vague- 
ness of  the  classic  vocabulary  help  in  this  effect.  He  is  at  his 
best  in  the  agreeably  Tnalin  scenes,  dependent  on  suggestion  or 
rouerie^  as  in  the  Gnide  and  in  certain  episodes  of  the  Lettres 
per  sanest 

That  masterpiece,  "  le  plus  profond  des  livres  frivoles  ; ''  ^  shows 
what  is  on  the  whole  a  happy  compromise  between  the  two  princi- 
ples. The  desire  to  please  perforce  compounds  with  the  irresistible 
idea,  determined  to  have  its  way.  "  Manner,'*  which  is  now  a 
brilliant  style,  and  genius  have  found  a  common  ground.^  Liber- 
tinism, some  critics  would  have  it,  and  story-telling,  form  but  a 
cloak,  a  foil  for  thoughtful  discussion.  The  last  part  of  the  book 
turns  preponderatingly  to  the  consideration  of  grave  questions, 
social  and  artistic,  political  and  economic,  religious  and  historical : 
the  Esprit  des  Lois  is  already  announced. 

Yet  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  in  the  mind  of  Montesquieu,  as 
in  that  of  his  contemporaries  and  in  that  of  impartial  posterity, 
the  lighter  elements,  whether  of  the  Oriental  trame^  the  sparkling 
epigrams  and  portraits,  the  delightful  tone,  the  perfect  grace  and 
vividness  of  the  style,  play  at  least  as  considerable  a  part  as  any 
doctoral  discussion.*  What  really  makes  the  Lettres  persanes  is  its 
brilliancy,  its  esprit  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word. 

^  E.  g.,  the  story  of  Zul^ma.  This  is  interesting  from  the  point  of  view  of 
construction.  It  is  properly  a  digression  containing  a  tale  and  a  tale  within  a 
tale — and  none  of  the  three  are  rounded  off.  Similarly,  in  A.  &  1.  the  reader  is 
bewildered  by  the  haziness  and  improbability  of  the  conclusion. 

^  Villeraain,  Cours  de  Litt. ,  p.  332. 

3  P.  81. 

*  Stories  are  not  lacking  to  illustrate  that  M.  subsequently  regretted  his  frivolity. 
He  is  said  to  have  told  his  daughter,  ' '  Laissez  cela,  mon  enfant ;  c'  est  un  livre 
de  ma  jeunesse  qui  n'est  pas  fait  pour  la  v6tre."  (Vian,  p.  64).  Also,  for  his 
free-thinking,  there  is  his  death-bed  confession,  probably  apocryphal  but  indica- 
tive, that  he  was  moved  to  these  utterances  by  "  le  gout  du  neuf  et  du  singulier ; 
le  d^sir  de  passer  pour  un  genie  supdrieur  aux  prejuges  et  aux  maximes  com- 
munes, I'envie  de  plaire  et  de  meriter  les  applaudissements  .  .  .  ." — His  words, 
according  to  P.  Routh  (Feller,  Diet  Hist.,  ix,  56).  His  desir  de  plaire  has  been 
condemned  by  critics,  from  Marivaux  to  Julie ville.     As  to  espi%  Castel's  state- 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  189 

The  reign  of  this  quality  ^  comes  as  supplementary  to,  as 
supplanting  indeed,  that  of  feminism.  It  appears  in  many 
guises :  as  simple  brilliancy  or  style  of  statement ;  as  epigram- 
matic subtlety  d  la  Rochefoucauld  or  as  more  abiding  apophthegm,^ 
shading  into  the  Orphic  and  the  prophetic  utterance ;  as  humorous 
exaggeration,  paradoxical  in  both  senses,  and  as  deft  irony ;  as 
realistic  drollery,  colloquial  repartee,  even  poor  puns ;  as  excoriat- 
ing satire  ^  and  biting  ridicule.^ 

Just  here  it  may  be  well  to  take  account  of  one  or  two  influ- 
ences. That  Montesquieu's  Persians  get  some  of  their  points 
from  the  Spectator  has  been  pretty  clearly  shown,^  and  I  think  in 
like  manner,  a  striking  analogy  may  be  traced — whether  or  not 
an  influence  may  be  predicated — between  the  Dean  of  Dublin 
and  the  President,  between  the  Lettres  Persanes  and  Gulliver's 
Travels.^  This  is  apart  from  the  argument  that  the  Frenchman's 
later  theory  of  the  separation  of  powers  derives  largely  from 
Swift's  Discourse  of  the  ContestsJ  That  contention,  plausible 
though  dangerous  as  all  such  speculations  are,  would,  however, 
if  sustained,  help  forward  the  present  argument. 

All  that  is  now  submitted  is  that  there  are  distinct  analogies, 
in  conception  and  satiric  treatment,  between  the  points  of  view 
ascribed  to  Gulliver  and  to  the  Persians.  There  is  the  same 
perfectly  straightforward  and  almost  serious  handling  of  very 
familiar  European  things  as  from  a  foreigner's  naive  standpoint. 
There  is  the  same  realism  of  detail,  the  same  jocose  appreciation 
of  what  would  strike  the  foreigner  as  remarkable.     Few  French- 

ment,  that  M.  wished  to  obliterate  his  reputation  in  that  line  (P Homme  moral, 
p.  99),  or  even  his  own  frequent  deprecation  of  such  fame  needs  some  discount. 
Allowing  for  the  more  serious  inclinations  of  age,  I  should  still  say  that  M.  was 
ready  till  the  end  to  condone,  if  not  to  approve,  both  his  work  and  his  wit. 

1  P.  89.  2  p^  118^ 

^  His  use,  both  of  satire  and  epigram,  is  less  kindly  than  recommended.  Pp. 
92,  123). 

*P.  91.  5  p.  151^  and  Meyer,  Com.  L.  P. 

^Sup.,  p.  150. — A  work  apparently  already  talked  of  among  his  friends  in  1722 
( Bolingbroke,  Lettres,  iii,  175),  though  not  published  until  1726.  However,  I 
am  not  trying  to  prove  an  influence. 

■^  Jannsen,  Months.  Theorie  .  .  .  zuriickgefiihrt,  and,  per  contra,  Pietsch  {q.  v.). 


190  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

men  have  endeavored  to  convey,  certainly  nowhere  else  has 
Montesquieu  succeeded  in  conveying  that  humor  which  is  so 
peculiarly  Swiftian  :  that  tone  of  simple  description  w^hich  hardly 
takes  the  reader  into  its  confidence,  which  baffles  him  by  minute- 
ness in  fact,  by  solemnity  in  statement,  which  appalls  him  by  the 
satire  of  its  ultimate  truth.  Only,  Swift  is  the  elder  and  more 
terrible,  having  far  more  of  gloom  and  dishearten ment  than  the 
Frenchman  cared  to  attain. 

This  much  by  way  of  illustration  for  a  certain  phase  of  our 
author's  wit.  Another  pl^se — and  this  time  La  Bruy^re  is  the 
precursor — is  to  be  found  in  the  delicate  cameo,  the  finely  touched 
laughable  portraits,  which  so  deliciously  enliven  the  Fersanes.  In 
this  connection,  it  may  be  remarked  that  Montesquieu\s  belief  in 
painting  types  instead  of  individual  characters  ^  is  well  wrought 
out  in  his  own  creation.  Every  portrait  is  as  typical  as  Moli^re 
— ^and  as  inoffensive. 

With  his  leading  characters,  he  is  hardly  so  happy.  He  has 
wished  to  avoid  a  "  Bajazet  naturalist  Franyais ; "  ^  but  his  own 
Bajazets  would  be  very  weak  if  considered  solely  as  faithful 
pictures  of  Oriental  potentates.  It  may  be  argued,  as  he  has 
argued,^  that  their  occidentalization,  proceeding  rapidly  throughout 
the  book,  would  naturally  progress  with  the  length  of  their  stay 
in  Europe.  His  "  Turks  "  become  passable  Christians.*  But,  in 
truth,  Usbek  and  Rica,  it  has  often  been  said,  were  manufactured 
as  two  mouthpieces  of  two  Montesquieus ;  ^  and  their  individual 
characterization  concerned  him  but  little. 

An  allied  point  is  that  of  the  Oriental  coloring.  This  he 
obtained,  in  his  opinion,  by  luxurious  harem  descriptions,^  by  the 
employment  of  exalted  language,  expressions  "  qui  auraient 
ennuye  jusque  dans  les  nues."  ^  Yet  several  of  his  fine  passages 
have  the  Oriental  warmth  as  a  raison  d^Hre.  As  a  rule,  however, 
there   is   a   suggestion   of  irony  in    the   very  magnificence   and 

*  P.  87.  2  P.  46.  •'»  I,  47,  415.  *  P.  87. 

^  The  first  as  the  sage,  the  second  rather  as  the  man  of  the  world. 
^He  shows  imagination,  to  my  thinking,  only  in  these  despotic  visions  (also 
Hist.  Verit.),  and  in  panoramic  historical  surveys  (esp.  G.  D,  R.), 
'  P.  156  ;  it  may  read  '*  envoys."     (i,  52) . 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  191 

ampollosity  of  this  made-to-order  vocabulary.  Hyperbole,  to 
which  as  a  Gascon  he  was  sufficiently  addicted/  comes  here  into 
play.  The  "figured  language"^  in  general,  which  even  Usbek 
would  abjure  in  itself,  the  flowery  language  of  compliment  are 
made  to  contribute  their  part.  With  all  this,  it  is  of  course  no 
real  Orient  that  he  depicts,  however  well  it  may  have  satisfied  the 
Regency. 

Hyperbole  is  not  the  only  figure  which  Montesquieu  uses  in 
his  normal  style.  There  are  epithets  and  oratorical  climaxes.^ 
There  is  the  dexterous  use  of  detail,  making  a  sort  of  synecdoche 
which  gives  much  vividness.  There  is,  most  important  of  all, 
his  fondness  for  antitheses. 

The  great  principle  of  contrast,^  in  its  larger  relations,  has  been 
put  to  masterly  use  by  Montesquieu.  In  this  very  work,  there  is 
as  essential  point  of  departure,  the  contrast,  evidently  designed 
by  the  author,^  between  the  Persian  point  of  view  and  the  Euro- 
pean setting.  Again,  the  Romains  is  one  long  sustained  antithesis 
between  the  Grandeur  and  the  Dicadenee  of  that  nation.  One 
may  also  find,  in  the  Sylla  et  Eucrate^  a  contrast  between  the 
historical  brutality  of  the  hero  and  the  dramatic,  rhetorical  way 
in  which  his  character  is  presented.  In  the  Lettres  persanes,  once 
more,  it  is  the  recurring  contrast  of  grave  and  gay  that  piques  our 
interest.  It  may  then  be  conceded  that  the  President  could  aptly 
apply  the  fecund  principle  in  the  large.® 

But  how  when  it  comes  to  details,  to  such  things  as  parallelism 
and  antithesis?  There  are  several  excellent  pleas  on  behalf  of 
true  antithesis.  It  can  be  alleged,  and  has  been  by  the  philoso- 
phers from  the  days  of  Socrates  to  those  of  Hegel,^  that  thought 

^  "Nombre  innombrable"  and  "tout  I'univers"  are  favorite  expressions. 

2  P.  155. 

^  P.  41.  This  is  both  of  periods  and  phrases,  with  the  telling  word  frequently 
at  the  end. 

♦P.  39.  51^49. 

*  Another  excellent  example  is  the  continued  parallel  of  the  Eomans  and  the 
Carthaginians  in  O.  D.  R.,  ch.  iv. 

'  Cf.  the  antithetical  method,  the  antinomies  of  the  Kantian  School. 


192  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Ifontesquieu, 

comes  by  opposition ;  that  an  idea  brings  as  a  necessary  correlate 
its  logical  opposite ;  to  which  it  might  be  added,  that,  whether  or 
not  there  is  exact  contrast  of  antonyms,  each  word,  as  a  self,  is 
opposed  to  others  of  its  kind  as  non-selves.  Hence  evolves  what 
seems,  from  the  literary  standpoint,  a  fertile  cause  of  antitheses ; 
a  writer  who  has  chosen  one  word  and  rejected  several  is  tempted 
to  put  down  one  of  these  last  as  complementary  or  antithetical  to 
his  chosen  word.  Therefore,  philosophically  or  artistically,  the 
fullest  expression  of  the  idea  tends  to  a  contrast  or  balancing  in 
expression.  That  a  sentence  may  be  signally  helped  in  harmony 
and  rhythm  by  the  balancing  of  its  simpler  or  its  complex  parts 
is  evident. 

This  may  all  be  very  true,  one  is  tempted  to  respond ;  but  what 
if  the  antithesis  is  false,  if  words  are  thrown  in  independently  of 
thought,  chiefly  to  make  a  rhythmical  style  ?  Montesquieu  him- 
self, has  made  the  distinction  and  has  answered  this  question. 
Only^  one  would  be  disposed  to  treat  more  tenderly  than  he  does 
the  case  of  "  false "  antithesis.  Rhythm  in  itself  is  not  such  a 
bad  thing ;  and  the  two  varieties  are  not  always  distinguishable, 
as  the  philosophic  attempts  to  cover  the  whole  field  under  Idea 
may  have  shown. 

One  would  be  so  disposed,  I  say,  but  for  one  thing — the  anti- 
thesis is  like  the  snake  of  the  fable.  If  once  allowed  j^er  se  it  is 
most  likely  to  invade  and  pervade  a  whole  style,  corrupting  it 
from  contrast  to  a  "  vicious  uniformity,''  driving  us  to  impatience 
with  its  frequent  recurrence,  making  us  demand  whether  anything 
is  ever  really  meant  or  not. 

To  return  from  this  excursus,  that  is  exactly  what  has  happened 
in  Montesquieu's  own  case.  In  vain  he  will  have  only  the  true 
antithesis  of  idea;  in  vain  he  denounces  Saint  Augustine  and 
St.-Evremond.  He  is  far  too  fond  of  Florus  and  of  Cicero. 
One  may  discern  in  his  very  penetration  of  the  subject,  even  in 
his  protests,  that  he  realizes  half-consciously  what  a  hold  the  figure 
has  acquired  on  him. 

It  is  admitted  that  there  are  many  true  antitheses  in  Montes- 
quieu's writings ;  but  there  are  too  many  of  the  other  kind ;  and 
in  either  case,  since  both  swell  the  total  amount,  the  general  effect 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. ^193 

has  been  seriously  to  impair  the  virtue  of  his  style  by  monotony. 
The  infection  spreads  from  simple  word-antithesis  to  a  balancing 
of  parts,  clauses,  sentences.  When  parallelism  and  sentence- 
balancing,  things  beautiful  in  themselves,  become  wearisome  from 
repetition,  when  the  antithetical  purpose  is  nakedly  evident  and 
its  artifice  manifest,  the  principle  has  clearly  gone  to  seed.  The 
reader  stands  in  a  pained  attitude  of  attention,  ready  to  pounce  on 
the  next  antithesis.  He  does  not  have  long  to  wait.  He  is 
pleased  by  what  promises  to  be  a  gentle  and  fruitful  contrast — he 
finds  himself  involved,  bemused  in  a  threefold  and  fourfold 
antithesis,  continuing  through  an  involved  sentence,  and  perhaps 
balanced  by  a  corresponding  sentence  to  form  a  perfectly  antitheti- 
cal paragraph.  This,  of  course,  is  an  extreme  case.  But  it  is 
rare  that  Montesquieu  stops  with  one  simple  word-antithesis. 
That  would  have  been  too  palpably  easy. 

It  has  seemed  worth  while  to  enlarge  on  this  figure,  and  its 
extensions,  since  it  is  the  most  prominent  technical  element  in  our 
writer's  style.  Its  abuse  is  related  to  his  protests  against  uni- 
formity and  does  not  conspicuously  make  for  variety.  The 
latter  quality  is,  however,  gained  for  the  Lettres  persanes  by  the 
different  subjects  and  tones  which  characterize  successive  letters. 

As  to  the  construction  of  the  book,  it  properly  has  none.  The 
sketchy  harem  imbroglio  is  hardly  a  very  strong  chaine}  The 
lack  of  constructive  ability,  which  Montesquieu  has  elsewhere  so 
signally  evidenced,  makes  less  difference  here  on  account  of  the 
very  nature  of  letters.  He  may  wander  at  his  own  sweet  will  to 
any  subject  and  proceed  with  any  development,  without  seriously 
marring  the  symmetry  of  such  a  work.  There  is  no  beginning, 
no  particular  conduct  of  plot,  and  a  hurried  ending — which,  how- 
ever, is  sufficiently  well  brought  about. 

The  episodes,  which  are  certainly  distinct  stories,  are  interesting 
enough.  The  best  seems  the  story  of  the  Troglodytes,  wherein 
may  be  partly  realized  his  ideal  of  antique  simplicity.^ 

The  style  is  rather  sec  and  brilliant  than  flowing.  The  "  asth- 
matic" sentences   seem   like    successive  stapes,    whose   point   of 

ip.  112.  ^v.im. 


194  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

junction  is  nowhere.  There  are  few  connectives.  An  event  or 
separate  fact  is  frequently  stated  in  each  phrase.  This  shows 
already  the  lack  of  care  for  transitions,  which  will  be  a  later 
reproach. 

There  is  uniformity  again  when  he  begins  periods  with  the  same 
words  several  times  in  succession.  This  is  a  favorite  habit/  and 
with  this  go  the  long  linked  peroratory  sentences,  with  climactic 
finishes.  A  more  serious  reproach  is  that  of  occasional  crudity, 
cacophony,  bad  grammar  and  obscurity. 

When  all  this  has  been  said — and  most  of  this  is  not  in  repre- 
hension— it  remains  that  our  author  has  forged  himself  a  polished 
and  trenchant  instrument,  flexible  for  defense,  sharp-edged  and 
piercing  in  attack.  His  incessant  care  in  perfecting  his  verbal 
expression  is  shown  by  the  successive  editions,  notably  by  those 
published  under  the  care  of  M.  Barckhausen.^ 

What  contributes  to  this  beauty  of  expression,  as  much  as  his 
grace  and  finished  manner,  is  the  concentrated  and  powerful  force 
of  his  vocabulary.  Not  only  is  this  most  striking,  but  most 
suggestive,^  containing  many  a  nuance^  many  a  felicity  and,  it 
must  be  admitted,  many  a  piece  of  preciosity.  He  not  only 
"  creates '*'*  his  diction  at  need,  but  is  constantly  in  the  habit  of 
exercising  a  "  gentle  pressure "  on  words  to  make  them  give  up 
all  that  they  have  of  significance  and  connotation.  He  has,  of 
course,  his  favorite  expressions,^  his  hyperboles  and  Gasconisms. 
But  only  in  the  Bomains  does  he  surpass  the  Persanes  for  concision, 
force  and  elegance  of  diction. 

In  this  ehef-d^oeuvre  of  historical  writing — muUum  in  parvo — 
he  has  merged  two  historical  methods,  the  philosophic  and  the 
panoramic  or  dramatic.^  If  at  one  moment  he  seems  somewhat 
spectacular,^  at  the  next  he  is  engaged  mainly  in  marshalling 


^  Much  more  awkward  and  monotonous  in  the  Hist,  verit. 

^L.  P.,  G.  D.  B.,  rejet  of  E.  L.  ^  P.  157. 

*  P.  54.  ^  Like  redoutable.  «  P.  115. 

^  A  quality  much  more  conspicuous  in  S.  &  E.,  where  the  grandiose,  the  Cicero- 
nian, the  oratoire  tend  to  dominate.  Yet  this  may  become  majestic,  almost 
august.  The  theme  is  singularly  suited  to  the  impressiveness  and  compact 
majesty  which  form  one  side  of  his  style. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  —  H)5 

causes,  and  always  his  attitude  is  in  the  best  sense  human  and  "  popu- 
lar." This  he  has  kept  as  legacy  frorfi  his  previous  worldly 
influences.  Esprit  and  feminism  have  vanished.  But  there  is 
still  the  classic  compulsion  to  throw  his  thoughts  into  a  shape  that 
may  be  understood  and  honored  by  an  audience  not  specially 
trained.^  Both  idea  and  expression  are  brought  within  the  reach 
of  all,  without  losing  in  nobility  or  impairing  the  general  tone — a 
reproach  which  has  justly  been  made  against  the  Esprit  des  Lois.^ 

The  result  of  the  method  has  been  a  masterly  piece  of  writing, 
no  less  delightful  than  thoughtful,  no  less  instructive  than  artistic. 
It  is  a  very  perfect  welding  of  thought  and  form,  and  as  such 
would  seem  to  unite  the  two  kinds  of  books.^  It  is  true  that  in 
the  last  part,  one  becomes  somewhat  confused  and  weary,  less 
perhaps  from  Montesquieu^s  fault  than  from  the  nature  of  the 
subject,  as  he  is  forced  to  wander  amid  the  chaotic  ruins  of  the 
two  Empires.  But  as  a  complete  product,  let  us  note  what  is 
now  the  fully  established  reign  of  the  general  Idea  in  his  mental 
processes  and  output. 

It  is  largely  because  he  has  been  able  to  grasp  the  leading 
principles  of  every  period  that  he  has  succeeded  in  presenting,  in 
such  little  space,  a  clear  coordinated  view  of  the  whole  history  of 
Rome.  The  work  is  saved  from  sketchiness  by  its  aim,  which  is 
not  narrative.  Yet,  in  order  to  avoid  too  abstract  and  dry  a 
treatment,  he  has  relieved  his  philosophic  view  with  illustrations 
and  figures  *  of  an  extraordinary  force,  with  magnificent  and 
climactic  periods,  with  a  suggestive  concision,  illuminative  and 
felicitous.  In  his  abstracting  of  the  essence  from  incidents  and 
events,  he  puts  forth  generalities  which  do  not  glitter  but  impress. 
His  thought  remains  on  the  heights  and  so  does  his  expression. 

For  this  grave  and  lofty  survey  of  an  empire's  course  is  clad 
in  a  style,  equally  grave,  noble  and  at  times  sublime.    At  its  best 


ip.  175. 

'  Where,  however,  he  again  resorts  to  esp-tY  and  the  saugrenu. 
3  P.  184. 

*■  Particularly  metaphors  and  similes — with  the  already  mentioned  presentation 
by  detail  (p.  190). 


196  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

it  is  a  stately  and  harmonious  organ-roll,  here  sonorous  in  quality, 
there  marked  by  a  preud  and  dignified  phrase,  like  his  own 
Roman  Stoics.  This  indeed  is  a  fine  outcome  of  his  classicism  ; 
a  contained  and  finished  modern  development  of  the  best  Latin 
prose. ^  Such  an  effect,  however,  is  seen  rather  as  an  inspiring  or 
as  a  chastening  element,  than  in  a  way  to  vitiate  and  weaken  his 
own  individual  expression. 

Classicism  again  appears  and  conspicuously  in  his  choice  of 
vocabulary — and  here  is  the  point  of  union  with  the  Lettres 
persanes.  There  is  the  same  power  of  compression  and  of 
nuances;  but  his  "creation"  of  diction  here  is  rather  along 
the  line  of  Latinisms.  He  turns  words,  if  ever  so  slightly,  from 
their  modern  to  their  antique  signification,  thus  recoining  them 
with  the  Roman  stamp. 

The  concision  extends  to  sentences ;  which  are  again  almost  too 
serrSs  and  compact.  They  have  at  times  something  of  a  tele- 
graphic effect,  tending  to  the  interjectional,  seeming  more  like 
notes  and  jottings.^  The  paragraphs,  too,  are  not  infrequently 
haches  and  brief,  consisting  of  a  single  sentence  and  having  each 
the  air  of  a  separate  treatise.  Again  there  is  the  lack  of  transi- 
tions. Wherever  the  Romains  shows  aridity  and  lacks  entrain, 
over-concision  is  likely  to  be  the  fault. 

The  paragraphs  are  marked  by  another  peculiar  trait.  Their 
succession  is  not  always  thoroughly  logical.  They  hardly  succeed 
one  another  so  much  as  they  grow  out  in  separate  stems — each 
following  the  former,  not  as  arising  from  its  whole  thought,  but 
as  suggested  by  some  special  thought  back  in  the  body  of  the 
predecessor.  The  movement  is  rather  inward  than  onward. 
There  is  thus  frequently  a  feeling  of  unpleasant  suspense  and 
entanglement,  without  the  sense  of  mental  progress. 

Such  things  cannot  seriously  mar  the  beauty  of  the  whole.  The 
Grandeur  et  Decadence  has  well  gained  its  place  among  the  world's 
Little  Masterpieces.  It  is  one  of  the  prime  products  of  classicism, 
alike  by  its  supremacy  of  thought  and  its  beauty  of  form. 

^Extending  even  to  Latin  construction  and  the  imitating  of   passages  from 
Tacitus,  et  al. 
2  AU  these  defects  are  much  more  marked  in  the  E.  L. 


The  Aesthetic  Dodrine  of  Montesquieu.  197 

It  has  been  too  much  the  fashion  to  regard  this  work  merely  as 
an  antechamber  or  annex  to  the  spacious  halls  of  the  Esprit  des 
Lois.  The  Romains  is  quite  capable  of  standing  on  its  own 
merits ;  and  needs  perhaps  less  defence  than  its  more  imposing 
and  celebrated  rival. 

When  it  comes  to  the  Esprit  des  Lois,  one's  impulse  is  first  to 
throw  up  the  hands  in  bewilderment  and  stupefaction ;  and, 
secondly,  to  apologize  for  presenting  cold  and  categorical  conclu- 
sions, which  it  would  take  hundreds  of  pages  adequately  to  prove. 
This  work  represents  Montesquieu  in  his  fourth  stage.  He  has 
passed  through  his  eras  of  wordly  frivolity,^  of  the  union  of  that 
and  brilliant  speculation,^  of  a  combined  classical  and  philosophi- 
cal conception  of  history.^  He  has  now  placed  himself  with 
tolerable  absoluteness  on  the  side  of  thought,  of  erudition  ;  and 
vast  scholastic  labors  supplant  the  careful  hours  formerly  devoted 
to  artistic  finish. 

He  himself  would  claim  that  he  has  carried  out  his  precept  of 
^^  treating  sciences  delicately."  ^  Many  of  his  critics  hold  that  he 
has  so  done  and  that  in  so  doing  he  has  added  another  domain  to 
literature.  Many  others  hold,  of  course,  that  the  literary  treat- 
ment is  incidental,  that  the  mass  of  fact  and  theory,  legal,  political, 
economic  and  social,  with  which  the  book  is  surcharged,  makes  its 
real  value.  With  the  last  statement  one  is  inclined  to  agree — with 
a  difference. 

From  the  literary  standpoint,  and  the  present  standpoint  is 
necessarily  that,  the  Esprit  des  Lois  is  a  colossal  failure.  Or,  if 
preferred,  it  is  a  succ^s  d'estime.  This  statement  is  not  made 
without  due  regret  and  all  circumspection. 

For,  to  consider  closely  his  "delicate  treatment,"  the  literary 
condiments  which  he  has  insinuated  into  the  work,  which  he  has 
added  not  interfused,  represent  only  a  compromise  with  his  con- 
demned principle  of  ornament.^  He  has  made  a  hasty,  ill-advised 
and  inartistic  return  to  the  ressorts  of  esprit  and  licentiousness, 


1  T.  G.,  V.dP.  ^L.  P.  3  Q^  j)^  ^. 

■*  A  procedure  really  adopted  in  several  of  the  Discours. 
5  Pp.  154-5. 


198  The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu, 

which  marked  the  Persanes.  Only  now,  such  condiments  are 
more  poorly  prepared ;  and  they  are  markedly  out  of  place  in  a 
serious  work  of  jurisprudence  and  government.  Further,  he  has 
attempted  to  relieve  his  subject,  by  the  insertion  of  chance 
colifichetSy  by  writing  very  short  chapters,  which  sometimes  con- 
tain nothing  at  all,^  by  a  quantity  of  supernumerary  faits  divers. 
His  belated  return  to  the  principle  of  pleasure,  to  a  desire  to 
amuse,  becomes  gauche  and  inharmonious  in  its  manifestations. 

One  might  pardon  all  this,  were  it  not  for  the  main  offense 
against  literary  presentation  that  ruins  the  book :  it  is  lamentably 
lacking  in  construction.  It  is  a  chaotic  mass  of  good  things  gone 
astray.  He  offends  against  his  every  dogma  of  order  and  suite,^ 
There  is  no  coordinate  principle  binding  the  whole ;  and  his  own 
hypothetical  arrangements  are  clearly  not  carried  out. 

This  is  supported,  as  Bruneti^re^  has  interestingly  shown,  by 
the  fact  that  each  successive  commentator  comes  with  a  different 
interpretation,  a  different  clue  to  the  maze  of  the  Esprit  des  Lois, 
All  are  right,  because  each  principle  partly  guided  Montesquieu 
in  his  discussion  ;  all  are  wrong,  because  no  principle  obtained 
consistently  from  beginning  to  end.  The  most  illuminative, 
perhaps,  of  the  recent  divisions  is  that  of  M.  Barckhausen.'*  But 
will  his,  or  any  other  clue,  correspond  with  the  titles  of  Montes- 
quieu's books,  with  the  inner  development  of  his  chapters?  It 
might  also  be  said  that  even  if  some  scheme,  both  broad  and 
ingenious  enough,  were  found  and  manipulated  to  fit  the  turns 
and  twists  of  the  trame^s  eccentric  development,  even  then  the 
literary  offense  is  not  nullified  ;  for  in  a  work  of  this  size,  the 
arrangement  should  be  more  evidently  logical  and  patent,  not 
requiring  the  ingenuity  of  a  problem-solver  to  grasp  its  divisions. 

Granted  the  confusion,  its  explanation  is  not  far  to  seek  :  the 
three  or  four  souls  and  principles  which  made  Montesquieu  are 
each  wrestling  for  the  predominance,  the  victory  going  to  none ; 


*  Bk. ,  VIII,  ch.  XV.     Also,  the  scattering  fire  of  small  paragraphs  has  more 
than  ever  the  effect  of  making  his  book  seem  largely  a  mere  collection  of  notes. 

^P.  39.  ^ Manuel,^.  295a. 

*  Le  Desordre  dans  VE.  L. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  199 

and  in  such  a  vast  field,  with  so  enormous  an  array  of  material, 
he  has  not  succeeded  in  ordering  and  mastering  his  forces.  There 
is  no  vantage-point,  sufficiently  lofty  for  either  author  or  reader 
to  obtain  a  coup-d^oeil  of  his  chaos. 

He  has  sought  such  a  point  de  rep^re  in  his  opening  book,  and 
has  signally  failed  to  find  it.  As  evidence  of  his  little  taste  for 
metaphysical  thought,^  his  philosophy  of  laws  is  notably  one  of 
the  poorest  parts  of  the  work ;  it  has  been  made  a  matter  of 
reproach  to  him  that  his  trend  is  rather  towards  opportunism 
than  towards  basing  a  system  on  some  high  philosophical  or 
ethical  import  of  laws.     They  are  defined  merely  as  rapports. 

This  conception  does  not  concern  us,  save  in  so  far  as  it  shows 
a  lack  of  leading  principle.  The  first  book  is  then  a  superficial 
introduction  which  introduces  to  nothing  that  he  subsequently 
writes.  His  last  two  books,  last  four  books  or  last  six  books — 
the  number  varies  inversely  with  the  enterprise  of  the  arranger — 
are  likewise  conceded  to  be  hors-d^ oeuvre^s  or  additions  outside 
of  any  plan.  This  again  shows  the  difficulties  which  the  plan- 
maker  has  to  contend  with.  ^    ^,,4.     vwxVtvviVnt^  \ 

His  material  overcame  him  in  another  way ;  that  is,  with 
reference  to  style.  In  contrast  to  his  previous  works,  the  pedes- 
trian quality  of  this  becomes  at  times  marked.  He  plods  on, 
frequently  amid  arid  wastes,  and  the  aridity  penetrates  to  the 
founts  of  inspiration.  Consequently,  there  is  the  effect  of  reading 
a  note-book,  interjectional  jottings  that  are  not  artistically  expanded 
and  linked. 

Yet  there  are  certainly  oases.  There  is  usually  the  old  clearness 
in  detail,  the  careful  choice  of  vocabulary.  And  there  is  occa- 
sionally the  old  brilliancy,  profundity,  strength  and  charm  of 
statement.^  The  portrait  of  Charlemagne,^  even  the  Invocation,'* 
are  instances.  It  is  significant  that  the  famous  chapter  on  the 
English  constitution  ^  has  been  dwelt  on  by  so  many  as  the  notable 
feature  of  the  book,  largely  obscuring  all  the  rest. 

1  P.  178. 

^  The  caution  must  again  be  made  that  it  is  treatment  and  presentation,  not  the 
thought  of  the  work,  that  concerns  us  here. 
3  VI,  50-1.  -*  IV,  359-60.  ^iv,  7-23. 


200  The  Aesthdio  Dootmne  of  Montesquieu, 

Episodes  and  interludes  may  have  their  value ;  familiar  personal 
expressions  may  have  their  charm ;  ^  but  it  is  as  a  whole  that  the 
work  must  be  judged.  For  the  scholarly  part  of  it,  there  can  be 
no  doubt  that  he  shows  his  love  of  study  ^  and  vast  knowledge. 
Even  this,  however,  frequently  limits  itself  to  the  discovery  and 
recording  of  stray  facts  about  Bantam,  gorillas  and  the  like, 
facetiae  which  have  been  much  ridiculed.  The  gravest  accusation 
here  is  that  he  does  not  put  into  practice  that  thorough  and  severe 
criticism  of  sources  which  is  his  own  recommendation.^ 

Is  it  too  rash  to  inquire  whether,  even  as  to  matter,  he  shows 
more  of  genius  in  the  Esprit  des  LoiSy  or,  as  he  has  put  it,  more 
of  "memory  and  patience?"^  If  so,  let  us  remain  on  the  side  of 
"  manner "  and  note  that  art  of  writing  which  he  partially  con- 
demned finds  here  its  final  retribution.  It  will  make  us  think, 
but  it  will  with  difficulty  make  us  read.^  This  work  is  not  a 
masterpiepe  of  literature  in  the  same  sense  that  the  Romaims  and 
the  Lettres  persanes  are  just  that.  It  may  be  a  masterpiece  of 
jurisprudence,  political  science,  or  even  of  legal  and  economic 
history.  But  a  masterpiece  of  literature,  if  literature  is  an  art, 
the  Esprit  des  Lois  can  hardly  be  esteemed. 


•  If  by  way  of  conclusion  it  be  demanded  what  can  be  said  of 
Montesquieu's  final  ranking  as  an  aesthetician,  a  critic  and  an 
artist,  something  like  the  following  results  may  be  submitted. 

As  an  aesthetician,  it  is  evident  that  he  cannot  stand  as  a 
theorist  of  the  first  water.  His  system,  if  system  it  can  be  called, 
lacks  coherency  and  principle.  He  vibrates  between  the  conflict- 
ing standards  of  beauty  and  utility,  of  amusement  and  thought ; 
he  has  no  sure  touchstone  for  the  discernment  of  art.  Taste  itself 
is  for  him  a  very  variable  matter,  and  even  classicism  will  not  lord 
it  over  the  whole  field  of  production. 

Yet  this  very  uncertainty  is  a  sign  of  moderation  and  breadth. 
He  may  be  called  a  trimmer  or  be  successively  claimed  by  various 

^  '' J'ose  le  dire,"  "II  faut  que  je  me  fasse  jour,"  etc. 

'P.  99ff.  "^V.m.  ♦?.  93.  sp,  22, 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu.  201 

aesthetic  schools,  just  as  has  befallen  him  in  the  field  of  politics. 
If  no  whole  doctrine  has  his  sympathy,  his  relativity  is  in  itself 
worth  while,  and  it  will  be  largely  in  individual  instances,  in 
particular  utterances  and  relations,  that  his  views  may  be  appre- 
ciated. Many  of  his  judgments^  will  be  found  interesting,  others 
are  suggestive  and  even  illuminative.  He  has  reasoned  where  he 
has  not  felt. 

His  taste  has  been  variously  judged ;  critical  opinion  on  the 
whole  considers  its  purity  not  above  suspicion.  Certainly,  it  is 
that  part  of  him  on  which  the  influence  of  the  period,  of  the 
solon  particularly,  exercised  its  most  detrimental  influence.  It  is 
to  be  noted,  nevertheless,  that  most  condemnations  of  his  taste 
refer  to  his  practice  alone,  and  that  his  theory,  as  regards  such 
things  as  ornament,  esprit  and  the  like,  is  by  far  higher.  His 
goM  bizarre  may  be  ascribed  to  his  age ;  his  own  fine  discernment 
of  certain  fine  things,  in  antiquity,  or  in  the  plastic  arts,  speaks 
for  itself.  Taste,  he  would  claim,  is  relative.  His  own,  which  is 
not  always  fade  and  false,  is  usually  that  of  the  raffing  and  of  the 
man  of  the  world,  rather  than  of  the  artist. 

As  a  critic,  he  is  again  systemless,  which,  according  to  Faguet, 
is  the  true  mark  of  the  broad  and  impartial  critic,  enabling  him 
to  enter  freely  into  every  man's  point  of  view.^  His  lack  of 
leading  principle  is  much  less  reprehensible  here  than  where  he 
would  theorize  aesthetically ;  here,  indeed,  it  rather  enhances  the 
value  of  his  judgments.  These  literary  judgments  have  been 
quoted  and  honored  by  many,  especially  by  Ste-Beuve.^  They 
are  in  truth,  since  individual  judgments  are  now  the  thing  required, 
of  proportionately  more  interest  and  value  than  his  other  aesthetic 
deliverances.  It  will  not  of  course  do  to  depend  very  thoroughly 
on  Montesquieu's  estimate  of  an  author ;  but  that  estimate  may 
well  help  us  in  coming  to  a  conclusion,  especially  when — and  this 
gives  his  surer  value — he  voices,  as  he  frequently  does,  the  senti- 
ment of  his  age  or  pronounces  upon  its  authors. 

"^  Sup.,  Bookn. 

^XVIIP  siMe,   p.  162— "un  livre  de  critique  divinatrice,  voiia  I'E.   L," 
This  is  not  exactly  literary  criticism. 
^  Bruneti^re  finds  more  to  condemn  {EU  crit,,  p.  248). 


202  The  AeMhetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu. 

How  then,  it  may  be  asked,  could  the  President  be  so  sum- 
marily dealt  with  in  histories  of  criticism  like  those  of  Bruneti^re 
and  Saintsbury  ?  Because,  it  might  be  divined,  systems  in  these 
works  have  necessarily  the  prime  place,  and  a  system  is  just  what 
Montesquieu  lacked/  This  lack,  however,  this  trimming,  may 
itself  assume  not  only  a  neutral  but  a  positive  value,  when  it 
comes  to  his  own  fine  protests  against  destructive  criticism,  his 
view  of  the  criti(;'s  enlightening  mission — precepts  which  he  has 
in  the  main  followed  practically. 

It  remains  to  decide  whether  or  not  he  was  a  man  of  letters 
and  an  artist.  For  the  first,  his  intimate  knowledge  of  the  pro- 
fession, his  evident  vocation  for  it,  seems  to  point  in  a  different 
direction  from  his  plainly  expressed  dislike  and  distrust  thereof. 
His  contempt  for  mere  authors,  for  poets  and  critics  especially, 
his  condemnation  of  books,  are  not  in  favor  of  a  high  reverence 
for  his  calling.  He  was  more  or  less  ashamed  of  his  mHier.  He 
was  too  much  of  an  aristocrat  to  be  a  thorough  litterateur.  Yet 
his  lifelong  devotion,  his  absorption  in  his  task  declare  the 
vocation,  whether  or  not  he  would  admit  it.  He  was  a  man  of 
letters  malgr^  lui. 

That  of  itself  hardly  tends  to  prove  him  an  artist.  What 
further  militates  against  this  conception,  is  his  lack  of  imagination 
and  sentiment,  of  a  feeling  for  beauty,  poetry  and  nature.  For 
doctrine,  he  interests  himself  in  abstractions,  in  the  plastic  arts, 
he  loves  antiquity ;  but  the  first  is  the  intellectual,  analytical 
interest,  the  second  is  the  taste  rather  of  the  cultured  amateur, 
not  of  the  connaisseur,  and  for  the  third  he  recognized  sufficiently 
well  that  the  Romans  were  not  poetically  sensible  nor  artistically 
supreme.  For  pmctice,  his  corrections  and  care  of  vocabulary, 
his  best  and  most  brilliant  sentences,  passages,  figures  and  finish, 
would  pronounce  him  of  the  craft ;  but  powerlessness  of  con- 
struction, of  narration,  descent  in  tone  and  a  fondness  for  paste 
jewels  leave  one  in  doubt.     The  best  arguments  for  him  are  based 

^  It  may  also  be  said  that  such  works  could  deal  only  with  an  adequate  body  of 
doctrine,  and  Montesquieu  furnished  hardly  sufficient  material  before  the  publica- 
tion of  the  P.  <fe  F. 


The  Aesthetic  Doctrine  of  Montesquieu,  ~  203 

on  his  sense  of  the  antique,  the  primeval  simplicity,  when  reatij 
he  shows  a  "pointe  de  po^sie;"^  on  his  care  for  words;  and, 
more  boldly,  on  his  adaptation  of  his  declared  purpose  to  "  faire 
un  art  de  la  raison  m^me."  ^  If  there  can  be  an  ^rt  wholly  of 
the  head,  concerned  with  the  creation  and  manipulation  of  ideas, 
he  has  achieved  that  art.  Its  accomplishment  brought  him  nearer 
the  lyric  transport  than  anything  he  has  known.^ 

He  was  an  artist  in  so  far  as  a  cultivated  gentleman,  in  so  far 
as  a  thinker  of  great  and  catholic  intelligence  is  bound  to  have 
some  appreciation  of  artistic  matters.     He  is  a  creator  of  ideas 
and  a  verbal  artist  of  a  rare  order.     But  an  artist  in  the  subtle,] 
manifold,   perfect   sense   of  the   word,   he    was   not,    and   could  I 
never  be. 

This  is  not  to  deny  that  he  was  many  other  things.  I  should 
feel  that  this  study  would  be  altogether  too  specialized,  were  it 
ended  without  one  more  tribute  to  the  Titanic  intelligence  and 
the  pervasive  influence,  the  very  human  charm  of  the  President. 
Great  as  he  could  be  in  an  age  where  ideal  greatness  was  unknown, 
great  morally  despite  his  concessions,  and  intellectually  despite 
recent  detractions,  he  has  welded  his  world  and  that  of  some 
antique  or  yet  unborn  vision  into  an  unparalleled  region,  whose 
atmosphere  clarifies  and  heartens  those  who  have  the  fortune  to 
dwell  with  him  for  a  space.  It  is  much  that  he  has  touched  few 
points  of  social  history  which  he  has  not  adorned,  that  he  has 
become  the  wise  moderator  as  well  as  the  legislator  of  nations, 
that  he  has  promoted  the  welfare  of  half  the  civilized  govern- 
ments on  the  globe,  that  he  has  come  to  his  own  in  every  land 
of  liberty.  It  is  not  altogether  his  fault  that  he  could  not  live 
in  Arcady — nor  yet  in  Bohemia. 


^Sch^rer,  Etudes,  ix,  251. 

2  P.  50. 

'^Invocation  (iv,  359)— Faguet,  pp.  190-1. 


VITA. 

Edwin  Preston  Dargan  was  born  on  the  7th  of  September, 
1879,  in  Orange  County,  Virginia,  where  he  spent  his  early  years. 
He  received  his  secondary  education  at  the  High  Schools  of 
Charleston,  S.  C,  and  of  Louisville,  Ky.,  taking  the  bacalaureate 
degree  from  Bethel  College,  Russellville,  Ky.,  in  June  1899.  He 
then  went  to  the  University  of  Virginia,  where  he  remained  three 
years,  taking  largely  graduate  courses  in  the  modern  languages 
and  literatures,  teaching,  during  the  last  of  these  years,  at  the 
Rawlings  Institute  in  Charlottesville. 

The  fifteen  months  from  June  1902  to  September  1903  were 
spent  abroad,  principally  at  Berlin,  Rome  and  Paris,  where  some 
knowledge  of  the  spoken  languages  was  gained.  Three  years  have 
been  passed  in  the  Romance  Department  of  the  Johns  Hopkins 
University.  The  writer  has  studied  French  as  a  major  subject, 
Italian  and  Spanish  as  first  and  second  minors  respectively ;  he 
has  held  a  Virginia  scholarship  during  the  first  two  years,  and  the 
fellowship  of  the  Department  this  final  year.  The  summer  of 
1905  was  spent  in  the  libraries  of  Paris  in  the  collection  of  material 
for  the  present  dissertation. 

Thanks  are  due  to  Doctors  Davis,  Wilson  and  Kent  of  the 
University  of  Virginia,  for  their  much  help  and  furtherance  in 
the  study  of  literature ;  to  Dr.  Philip  Ogden  of  this  institution 
for  illuminative  interpretation  of  the  same,  particularly  along  the 
line  of  the  criticism  of  ideas ;  to  Dr.  E.  C.  Armstrong  for  his 
personal  inspiration  towards  scholarly  and  exacting  ideals ;  to  Dr. 
J.  E.  Shaw  for  similar  impulses  and  friendly  services ;  especially 
to  Dr.  A.  Marshall  Elliott  for  general  kindly  guidance,  advice  and 
assistance,  both  wise  and  cordial,  shown  in  many  ways. 


14  DAY  USE 

RETURN  TO  DESK  FROM  WHICH  BORROWED 

LOAN  DEPT. 

This  book  is  due  on  the  last  date  stamped  below, 
or  on  the  date  to  which  renewed.  Renewals  only: 

Tel.  No.  642-3405 
Renewals  may  be  made  4  days  priod  to  date  due. 
Renewed  books  are  subject  to  immediate  recall. 


14 


Due  end  of  t-All  Quarter      ^_  «  -  .-_ 
wbiect  to  recall  after-      OK  ■«*I0  1  « 


HHTft 


tD-O^S^H^M^ 


'^'hu\'m- 


JUN  1^2004 


(NsFlTs-^OH^e-l^a  Um?enS]ofO;iSrma 


/  ~n 


1  7^(i^f 


